You could stop most of those by getting the federal Gov't out of the land owning business (which aside from federal installations it needs it should not be in).
Why do the feds own 80% of a state to begin with? How does that sound even slightly reasonable?
Seriously, if private land charges so much more, think how much the Feds are losing in taxes by holding onto land they cannot even efficiently administer to begin with. Let the ranchers cap predators on their own.
I suspect you'll find at least some conservatives who are disgusted by the subsidies handed out, corporate welfare and crony capitalisms are big problems that include but extend way beyond ranching.
Frazzled wrote: Except New Mexico. That radioactive mutant zone needs to continue to be surrounded by the military. We're in it for the species people!
Wait a minute. Philmont Scout Ranch is there. I had the most awesome time of my youth at that place.
Honestly, i feel like the Government is playing this about right. Stay in the background, let the locals take the lead and avoid a Federal vs. Miltia fight. That is what they want, and I am all in favor of not letting radicals or any stripe get what they want.
CptJake wrote: Why do the feds own 80% of a state to begin with?
First, you steal it from the Natives. Then you contract a land company to sell it to white people. When the land company cannot find buyers, it reverts to the Fed, who then try to find homesteaders. If no homesteaders can be found, it's assigned for other uses such as National and State parks.
Or, we keep it under the Fed because I trust them more thant corporations.
And this isnt about Native LAnd Rights, hell, most of them believe you cant even own land
hotsauceman1 wrote: Or, we keep it under the Fed because I trust them more thant corporations.
And this isnt about Native LAnd Rights, hell, most of them believe you cant even own land
Believed. Most have gotten over that little quibble.
Why do the feds own 80% of a state to begin with? How does that sound even slightly reasonable?
Step 1: The Federal Government settles the area. Step 2: A treaty between the UK and the Federal Government of the US declares the Federal Government of the US as a the owner of the land. Step 3: The Federal Government, who owns all this land, opens it up for home steading and tells everyone that they can own their own slice of land if they want to. Step 4: Nobody wants most of the land. Step 5: Federal Governments keeps the land that nobody wants. Step 6: The territory becomes a state and people who own their land keep on owning their land (settlers, cities, local/state/federal governments). Step 7: ???? Step 8: Complain that the federal government still owns the land that they couldn't get anybody to take 150 years ago.
The more I heard about this event, the more it sounds like an episode of squidbillies.
I mean, sizing an vacant building in the middle of nowhere in the middle of winter to protest the sentencing of a complete stranger, only to run out of food and get frozen out is pretty ridiculous.
Kap'n Krump wrote: The more I heard about this event, the more it sounds like an episode of squidbillies.
I mean, sizing an vacant building in the middle of nowhere in the middle of winter to protest the sentencing of a complete stranger, only to run out of food and get frozen out is pretty ridiculous.
There hardly a threat long as you isolate them and just wait. They will run out of food, beer or fuel at some point.
John Green did an amusing video about this pointing out that if the Federal Government has no right to this land, then logically the only people who actually do have the right (since the settlers were granted rights from the Fed originally) are the native tribe that were living there at the time it was annexed. Apparently there are about 300 of them left.
Because they're the ones who negotiated for it in the first place. It's not like a US citizen walked up to France or Mexico and paid for the land. The US government paid/won it.
Land is always owned by someone. It's not just spontaneously owned out of nothing.
Because they're the ones who negotiated for it in the first place. It's not like a US citizen walked up to France or Mexico and paid for the land. The US government paid/won it.
Land is always owned by someone. It's not just spontaneously owned out of nothing.
In Oregon? You may want to look up the history... The Spanish lost Nevada in a war.
Honestly once it becomes a state the fed should have transferred all territory to the state.
In Oregon? You may want to look up the history... The Spanish lost Nevada in a war.
The Oregon Territory was acquired by the Federal Govenment as part of a treaty with the British in 1848 (technically speaking, how the US got the pacific Northwest is a mix of 'we bought it from France', but Britain said 'no it's mine').
Further the Spanish didn't lose Nevada. They lost Mexico, which included Nevada until we fought the Mexican-American War and took Nevada (and Arizona, New Mexico, and Californy) in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.
But that's all beside the point. The French, British, Spanish, Mexicans (or anybody) was not dealing with US citizens, they dealt with the US government who acquired the land in treaty, purchase, and war. If they didn't own the land at that point (disregarding any natives) who the hell did? If no one ever settled the land or bought it under the numerous programs the US government used to distribute lands if acquired, of course the US government still owns it.
EDIT: Copy pasting this from a PM from a more astute poster than I who bothered to type out a timeline;
The timeline is such:
-- Treaty of 1818 established the 49th parallel east of the Lake of the Woods as the border of British-held lands.
---- As a part of this treaty, "Oregon Country" established as shared land between the USA and UK.
---- Was disputed by Spain and Russia.
---- Oregon Country was most of Idaho and Oregon, all of Washington part of Montana, and even a portion of British Colombia.
-- Adams-Onis Treaty of 1821 ceded Spain's claims to Oregon Country.
---- America's claims of Texas were ceded to Spain, not that we really believed that at the time
-- Russo-American Treaty of 1824 and Anglo-Russian Convention of 1825 ceded Russian claims to Oregon Country.
---- They did keep a fort in California until the 1840s.
-- Oregon Treaty of 1846 ended British claims of Oregon Country, save for that which was north of the 49th parallel.
---- Oregon Country vanished as a region, becoming unorganized territory.
---- With no more disputes from other countries, Oregon Country was recognized as owned by the United States.
-- 1848, Oregon Territory was established, covering what used to be most of Oregon Country.
-- 1853, Washington Territory was split from Oregon Territory.
-- 1859, western portion of Oregon Territory was admitted as a state, remainder given to Washington Territory.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CptJake wrote: Honestly once it becomes a state the fed should have transferred all territory to the state.
Well that's not how it happened so it's a bit late to be crying about how things should have been 100 years ago.
And even then, it's just the same deal. The State governments aren't exactly going to stand around letting people use state lands without paying applicable fees, or setting fires to cover up poaching.
Da Boss wrote: John Green did an amusing video about this pointing out that if the Federal Government has no right to this land, then logically the only people who actually do have the right (since the settlers were granted rights from the Fed originally) are the native tribe that were living there at the time it was annexed. Apparently there are about 300 of them left.
Can't exactly steal from people who lacked the concept of owning land in the first place.
And face it, the Native Americans got into a war with the US. They lost, get over it. Both sides were jerks, get over it. Join the modern world and stop wringing hands over stuff that happened 200 years ago.
Grey Templar wrote: Can't exactly steal from people who lacked the concept of owning land in the first place. .
Not quite true. We generally viewed it as communal property. And the people in the area had a very good idea of owning land before the US ever existed, they'd been trading with the French.
Grey Templar wrote: And face it, the Native Americans got into a war with the US. They lost, get over it.
You're thinking of the Nez Perce. The Coeur d'Alene were the ones in that area, if I remember right. IIRC they never had a war with the US, and were just ripped off at gunpoint.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bromsy wrote: The land belongs to anyone with the strength to take it. Everything else is just lawyer talkin'
Right up until the war crimes tribunal starts hanging people.
BaronIveagh wrote: And the people in the area had a very good idea of owning land before the US ever existed, they'd been trading with the French.
This thread is no place for truth, just feelings about what people think to have been true..
BaronIveagh wrote: IIRC they never had a war with the US, and were just ripped off at gunpoint.
One need not even be neutral, settlers turned on their Native allies as well. But oh baby that sweet land was totally worth it as it never came up again and everyone lived happily ever after.
Because they're the ones who negotiated for it in the first place. It's not like a US citizen walked up to France or Mexico and paid for the land. The US government paid/won it.
Land is always owned by someone. It's not just spontaneously owned out of nothing.
To be blunt, in the western concept, land was owned first by whoever was strong enough to grab it, and then ownership was passed down within socio-legal systems that vary somewhat depending on the country, and include feudatory grants, ancient rights, conquest, squatting, purchase, commons, enclosures, and other forms of transfer or expropriation.
In some places like Australia and the Matto Grasso, there was no land ownership in the western sense because there was so much more land than people that it didn't make any difference.
The Bundys' complaints can be seen as a form of social/political pressure to change the land ownership in their specific favour by mobilising public opinion for changes in the law.
Land ownership is not really a western concept. Territory even in North America has always existed as long as people were here. It gets drilled into our heads in grade school and cheesy tourist traps that Native Americans tribes were a peaceful people and one with the land and all that jive. Its BS. Tribes warred with each other constantly. The British and French had no issues getting native allies as it gave those native tribes a chance to go after their long time enemies backed up by powerful new technology. NA also had similar destructive farming techniques as they have down in South America currently with the slash and burning of the rainforests. A Spanish ship a couple decades prior to real colonization of NA noted in its log the shores were constantly hazy with smoke from millions of cook and forest fires from the natives. Most of whom were wiped out over the continent by a black plague-like disease before Europeans landed leaving massive fields already relatively cleared and ready to be occupied and farmed. Made for easy occupation and the invasion vs the remnants of the once mega population of native Americans was quick although not painless.
I read an article this morning about the hold off. Apparently in 1996 after the disasters of Ruby Ridge and Waco the FBI changed its tactics when dealing with cases like this. They found building up a huge military-like presence caused an escalation in the incident(duh!) and since then has taken a more hands off approach. This has worked in the few sieges since with no loss of life. I think the longest successful siege was 81 days. That said, I agree with the article that somewhere nearby the FBI has set up a mock up of the facility and using thermal data has role players carrying out what the people inside are doing while the tactical teams rehearse over and over how to go in, but that this is a last resort and they would rather just wait them out with minimal visible presence.
Col. Dash wrote: Land ownership is not really a western concept. ...
Of course not, but the current situation in the USA inevitably is the product of western concepts of land ownership.
Vs. the Eastern concept? If I am not mistaken all of the Pacific Rim countries are currently in a tizzy because china is claiming ownership rights over a good bit of the Southeast Pacific.
There are more land law concepts that western and eastern. The point is that it's western concepts (largely British) that gave rise to the law of the USA that Bundy is disputing.
To be more accurate I think, Bundy is disputing that the range wars are over, that just because you see land doesn't mean it's automatically yours, and rule of law actually exists in the West now
So the Hammond's, who distanced themselves from the militia and reported in for extra jail time, after serving the original sentence.
Were law abiding enough to turn themselves in, but law breaking enough to do harm to a family member. Strange people.
This is from an unimpeachable source. ??
loki old fart wrote: So the Hammond's, who distanced themselves from the militia and reported in for extra jail time, after serving the original sentence.
Were law abiding enough to turn themselves in, but law breaking enough to do harm to a family member. Strange people.
This is from an unimpeachable source. ??
A police report and a witness that was good enough to be used during their federal trials.
Kilkrazy wrote: There are more land law concepts that western and eastern. The point is that it's western concepts (largely British) that gave rise to the law of the USA that Bundy is disputing.
I prefer the Russian land law concepts myself. "All of your land are belong to Rus".
On a serious note, if those Hammond guys the guys in the building were 'defending' have reported in for jail anyways, then why are those guys still out in the woods? Shouldn't they be going home now to think about how occupying empty buildings in forests is not a good way of defending something?
LordofHats wrote: Because it was never about the Hammonds for them. The Hammonds were just the excuse to start the glorious revolution that exists in their heads.
In that case they can be charged under legal code 18 2384 and go to ADX Florence for 20 years (which is what I personally hope happens)
A libertarian that is bias against the federal government? Well color me surprised
You know that it is wise to listen to multiple parties, multiple sides of a story, and piece together the truth as best you can from facts.
Did you even bother listening to his video? Sure, there are PLENTY of things he says I do not agree with... The same could be said with every other human being on planet, heck, including myself!
But what he does do is state facts. He states court documents and he states statistics from the BLM organization itself.
I know this is going to sound insulting and condescending, but it would be wise as you grow older (I don't care if you're 17 or 70, we never stop growing and learning) to learn to relax, and listen to everyone around you. You'd be surprised at what you find/learn/etc.
In the end, from what court documents show, all this boils down to - The BML wants land, and they are throwing 2 men in jail for 5 years each over $100 in damages.
A libertarian that is bias against the federal government? Well color me surprised
You know that it is wise to listen to multiple parties, multiple sides of a story, and piece together the truth as best you can from facts.
Did you even bother listening to his video? Sure, there are PLENTY of things he says I do not agree with... The same could be said with every other human being on planet, heck, including myself!
But what he does do is state facts. He states court documents and he states statistics from the BLM organization itself.
I know this is going to sound insulting and condescending, but it would be wise as you grow older (I don't care if you're 17 or 70, we never stop growing and learning) to learn to relax, and listen to everyone around you. You'd be surprised at what you find/learn/etc.
In the end, from what court documents show, all this boils down to - The BML wants land, and they are throwing 2 men in jail for 5 years each over $100 in damages.
Yeah if you did any research on this guy you would know he has very little credibility and they way he tries to put out the "truth" its fairly obvious he is very biased
I'm pretty sure it cost a hell of a lot more to put out those fires than $100, and that's before getting to how they set a fire that threatened to trap firefighters between two fires (which I reiterate, one of which the Hammonds started after being explicitly told not to start fires). I'm also fairly certain poaching is a crime with a punishment much higher than $100.
Title: Morale at Oregon Standoff Collapses After Militia Member Goes AWOL, Drinks Away Donation Money
Spoiler:
NEWSMorale at Oregon Standoff Collapses After Militia Member Goes AWOL, Drinks Away Donation MoneyDylan Hock | January 7, 2016
The week-long Oregon standoff at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, already the butt of many jokes, is already falling apart due to infighting between group members.
According to a Facebook video that he has since removed from his profile, Cai Irvin, one of the gunmen holding down the federal bird sanctuary, claimed that one of the “patriots” walked off the camp to stay in a hotel and drink away the donations he raked in to be part of the insurgency.
The man in question is identified as Joe O’Shaugnessy, otherwise known as “Capt. O,” allegedly a member of the Arizona militia. Capt. O had been arguing with others at the occupation and ended up checking into a motel room Wednesday night where other pseudo-supporters have been staying.
Infamous anti-Muslim organizer and fellow Arizonan militant John Ritzheimer, also present in Oregon for the standoff, went over to the motel to confirm O’Shaugnessy’s desertion. Ritzheimer found him drinking alcohol paid for with the donations given to him by fellow “patriots” wishing to support the effort, according to disabled National Guard member and group spokesperson Maureen Peltier.
“Ritzheimer did call me – he’s fething pissed, he’s mad, he’s upset. He told me to tell all of you that Joe O’Shaugnessy is a deserter and a coward,” Irvin said.
Since several of the militants have been seen in the local area dining at restaurants even as the standoff remains underway, the fact that Capt. O went to stay at a local motel wouldn’t have sparked too much surprise, nor indicate anything out of the ordinary was afoot. However, Ritzheimer’s message indicates O’Shaugnessy may be the second “deserter” among participants of the poorly-planned Oregon standoff. One of the insurgents who has already run off under the pressure is Brian “Buddha” Cavalier, who likely fled in shame after the media reported that he had lied about being a Marine, with the Marine Corps itself revealing that they had no record of his service.
O’Shaugnessy also argued with his fellow “revolutionaries,” taking issue with the fact that women and children are present at an occupation where the militants have been attempting to goad law enforcement into a gunfight to the death.
But despite the tiffs and miffs between the group and O’Shaugnessy, members of the militant group say they feel betrayed by Captain O, who had also been party to the standoff at the Bundy Ranch last year.
Having learned of Captain O’s recent fiery thirst, Irvin said:
“It’s like finding out there is no such thing as Santa. Come on, man.”
O’Shaugnessy, however, is not exactly wallowing in his crowdfunded beer. Instead, he’s written a small statement on his Facebook claiming the Malheur militants are now running a “smear campaign” on him, presumably for calling them out on the presence of women and children at a would-be gunfight and storming off. Captain O said:
“Because I have been vocal about not supporting the actions taken by the individuals inside the compound apparently they have desired to launch a smear campaign against me. Even though I am one of the only Patriots on the outside doing everything I can to try and prevent this from turning into another Wako [sic] And making sure to protect the safety of all involved. To what I say my reputation is sterling.”
With two prominent members already gone or seemingly ousted, it seems this standoff may end with a whimper rather than a bang.
Looks like one guy deserted when the public found out he had never been a Marine, because the Marine's said they have never heard of him.
Title: Official Member Of Trump Campaign Joins Oregon Militia
Spoiler:
The co-chairman of Donald Trump’s New Hampshire “Veterans for Trump” group has arrived in Burns, Oregon, to assist the small cadre of armed men who are seeking to provoke a standoff with federal officials there.
That not-quite-standoff began over the weekend when a handful of men led by Ammon Bundy decided to turn a much larger peaceful protest over a decision to send two ranchers back to jail for arson into an armed struggle. The group’s numbers are small – especially compared to the 300 who reportedly joined the peaceful protest of the re-sentencing – but they have now been reinforced by Jerry DeLemus, a former United States Marine living on the opposite side of the country.
Trump himself has said little about the situation in Oregon, following the pattern of most of the GOP primary candidates. But on Tuesday he seemed to tell The Hill it was time for the Bundy crew to pack it in and go home. “You have to maintain law and order, no matter what,” he said.
It is at least the second time DeLemus has ridden to the physical aid of a Bundy. When Ammon’s father Cliven had his cattle impounded by the Bureau of Land Management in 2014 over more than $1 million in unpaid fines and fees for his use of public lands, DeLemus and his son drove 41 hours in three days to come help.
The impromptu militia DeLemus helped lead in Bunkerville, NV, eventually pushed the agency to return Bundy’s cattle under threat of violence. “If they made one wrong move, every single BLM agent in that camp would’ve died,” another leader of the group named Ryan Payne bragged to the Missoula Independent later. “We had counter-sniper positions on their sniper positions. We had at least one guy – sometimes two guys – per BLM agent in there.”
DeLemus’ job in Bunkerville was “chief of security,” according to RawStory, which reports he was personally responsible for dismissing the members of the Bundy brigade who later went on to kill two police in Las Vegas before being killed themselves by other officers. He says he’s come to Oregon to help ensure the younger Bundys and their adherents find a peaceful resolution and leave the refuge safely.
In a Facebook post explaining his decision, he also warned that a military psychological operation was taking place. “We must be level headed and remember there is a psyops war happening as well and all who were at Bunkerville know well what I’m talking about,” DeLemus wrote.
When a GQ reporter asked the Granite State man in 2014 how he thought the Bunkerville standoff might end, he said there was a “good chance” that federal agents would return and kill every member of Bundy’s brigade, promising his crew would shoot back if it came to it. “And I’ll tell you what, they’ll have a bloody nose, and I’ll tell you what: the American people will rise up,” he said. “Go ahead.”
DeLemus told reporters from the conspiracy theory-driven Next News Network at the time that “there’s great risk we may not come home” from Bunkerville. And a year earlier in New Hampshire, he told a crowd of Tea Party types that “We are in a similar position our Founding Fathers found themselves in and their decision to stand was equally difficult.”
He also believes President Obama is secretly Muslim, according to a June 2014 Facebook post about the return of U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl after five years as a captive of the Taliban. (The opening sequence of the podcast Serial’s current run of episodes on Bergdahl features Trump’s voice saying, “Y’know in the old days deserters were shot,” to raucous applause.) “You are a race baiter and a sure sign of how little time America has left,” he wrote to the president in another post.
Looks like there are a lot of people worried about safety here, both inside and outside of the militia.
LordofHats wrote: To be more accurate I think, Bundy is disputing that the range wars are over, that just because you see land doesn't mean it's automatically yours, and rule of law actually exists in the West now
Well, it's also important to remember the immortal words of Mel Brooks and Andrew Bergman:
Who could have foreseen that a loose group of individuals united by their defiance of formally constituted authority would tear itself apart by infighting and rebellion?
Oh snap things are getting more exciting as another group of militia have shown up to do security for the initial group that doesn't want them to squat where they are squatting.
[Bundy's Attorney]McFarlane said members of the original occupation are “alarmed” by the new arrivals.
“This was the last thing in the world they wanted to see happen,” MacFarlane told reporters. He stressed that Bundy didn’t request that the group come, and stressed their presence is unwanted.
Brandon Curtiss, leader of the Pacific Patriot Network, said the group will not be staying inside the refuge with the Bundy group, but will be “patrolling the perimeter,” according to the Oregonian.
The occupation of the bird sanctuary started last week, when Ammon Bundy, son of rancher Cliven Bundy, led the group there after a protest over the imprisonment of ranchers Dwight and Steven Hammond. The men have been sentenced to federal prison terms for setting fires on federal property. The Bundy group believes the ranchers’ rights are being violated and want locals to take control over the federal land they are occupying.
Ahtman wrote: Oh snap things are getting more exciting as another group of militia have shown up to do security for the initial group that doesn't want them to squat where they are squatting.
[Bundy's Attorney]McFarlane said members of the original occupation are “alarmed” by the new arrivals.
“This was the last thing in the world they wanted to see happen,” MacFarlane told reporters. He stressed that Bundy didn’t request that the group come, and stressed their presence is unwanted.
Brandon Curtiss, leader of the Pacific Patriot Network, said the group will not be staying inside the refuge with the Bundy group, but will be “patrolling the perimeter,” according to the Oregonian.
The occupation of the bird sanctuary started last week, when Ammon Bundy, son of rancher Cliven Bundy, led the group there after a protest over the imprisonment of ranchers Dwight and Steven Hammond. The men have been sentenced to federal prison terms for setting fires on federal property. The Bundy group believes the ranchers’ rights are being violated and want locals to take control over the federal land they are occupying.
You know, sitting here, we mock these losers, but, it does raise the question, how long until someone charismatic enough comes along and unites all these misc morons?
BaronIveagh wrote: You know, sitting here, we mock these losers, but, it does raise the question, how long until someone charismatic enough comes along and unites all these misc morons?
I'd say never. We can't even get Libertarians to unite behind a cause so how do you expect to unite paranoid, anti-government wackos?
BaronIveagh wrote: You know, sitting here, we mock these losers, but, it does raise the question, how long until someone charismatic enough comes along and unites all these misc morons?
An armed group that has occupied a wildlife refuge center in Oregon over grievances with the federal government has refused a sheriff’s request to leave and no more meetings are planned, the Harney County Sheriff’s Office said Friday.
The group, led by Ammon Bundy, declined Sheriff David Ward’s request during a meeting Thursday, but the sheriff planned to talk with the group again Friday.
“The people on the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge made it clear that they have no intention of honoring the sheriff’s request to leave. Because of that, there are no planned meetings or calls at this time,” the Harney County Sheriff’s Office said in a statement Friday afternoon.
The sheriff’s announcement came after Bundy told reporters Friday, “we’re not the least bit ashamed of our actions,” according to NBC affiliate KTVZ.
Ward “is keeping all options open” the statement said. The FBI is also involved, and has said it is working toward a peaceful resolution. There have been no arrests.
The group took over the headquarters at the wildlife refuge on Saturday following a protest over jail sentences imposed on two ranchers convicted of setting fires on government owned land.
Bundy has also said the group wants federally owned land turned over to local control. At a face-to-face meeting with Ward Thursday, Bundy said he and his compatriots were “being ignored again.”
Bundy is the son of Cliven Bundy, the Nevada rancher who faced off with the federal government in 2014 after agents tried to seize his cattle over more than $1 million in unpaid grazing fees. In the face of an armed demonstration and standoff, the agents stood down.
On Wednesday Ward said at a community meeting that the armed group should go home, and took exception to the fact that the occupiers are from outside of the area. He said they “hijacked” the protest over the ranchers.
“You don’t to come here from elsewhere and tell us how we’re going to live our lives,” Ward said.
Oregon Gov. Kate Brown on Thursday said the armed protesters “need to decamp immediately and face the consequences.”
The sad thing about these thugs is that they never really had a chance. They were probably on welfare as children - 40% of all food stamp beneficiaries are white, a huge majority. 25 percent of them are from single-parent families, so they probably didn't have strong father figures, and they are steeped in white culture which glorifies violence - from gangster music that glamorizes lawlessness like John Lennon and Bon Jovi to their movies which teach robbery is acceptable, such as with Ben Affleck and George Clooney.
Where are the moderate white people speaking out against them? Where are the prominent white figures, like Guy Fieri and Adam Sandler, decrying these thugs? It really makes them all look bad, if you ask me. It's no real surprise that whites make up 93% of the prison population.
Someone weapon going to have a Negligent Discharge. Shoot out in the cabin, on cabin grounds, through the roof, and the watch tower to include their roving patrols. Problem solved, Cause dies (damn), mass casualties, and media goes nuts fitting it into their agenda. Then the thread turns into mass shooting, 2nd Amendment, and gun control.
It's almost like a bunch of heavily armed idiots seizing a government site and "patrolling" it while threatening violence and requesting recruits to join them in their jihad against the US have created a dangerous situation.
BaronIveagh wrote: You know, sitting here, we mock these losers, but, it does raise the question, how long until someone charismatic enough comes along and unites all these misc morons?
Never. These guys One True Scotsman each other so bad, they all have to wear kilts. This crew probably thinks Cruz is a commie.
If these guys were black, they would have been shoot by the police days ago.
If these quys were muslims, they would have been shot by the military days ago.
But they are white, so they are allowed to do their thing.
At least this is how it looks like from the other side of the ocean. Why are these guys still not arrested?
von Hohenstein wrote: If these guys were black, they would have been shoot by the police days ago.
If these quys were muslims, they would have been shot by the military days ago.
But they are white, so they are allowed to do their thing.
At least this is how it looks like from the other side of the ocean. Why are these guys still not arrested?
While I generally agree with that assessment, it shouldn't be a race to the bottom; we shouldn't demand a bloodbath to be fair. We're not aiming to equalize around "awful".
These guys have no hostages and post no real imminent danger to anyone and they'e in a fairly remote location. SImply waiting is the easist and best way to handle it. They have no power, dwindling food, and pretty poor morale. Better to just cut them off, cut their power, water, etc, set up a cellular blocker, and simply wait until they surrender and then charge them.
von Hohenstein wrote: If these guys were black, they would have been shoot by the police days ago.
If these quys were muslims, they would have been shot by the military days ago.
But they are white, so they are allowed to do their thing.
At least this is how it looks like from the other side of the ocean. Why are these guys still not arrested?
Why would we care how it looks on the other side of the ocean?
von Hohenstein wrote: If these guys were black, they would have been shoot by the police days ago.
If these quys were muslims, they would have been shot by the military days ago.
But they are white, so they are allowed to do their thing.
At least this is how it looks like from the other side of the ocean. Why are these guys still not arrested?
Why would we care how it looks on the other side of the ocean?
It looks precisely the same this side of the ocean as well...
von Hohenstein wrote: If these guys were black, they would have been shoot by the police days ago. If these quys were muslims, they would have been shot by the military days ago.
But they are white, so they are allowed to do their thing. At least this is how it looks like from the other side of the ocean. Why are these guys still not arrested?
Can you show any examples in the US where the groups you mention took over a building in the woods and were then killed by cops/military? Hell, can you find any examples of Muslims in the US being killed by the military as you claim would be the case? Even the gak bag Nidal Hassan was killed by civilian DoD cops.
On the other hand, I can show examples where whites were killed by cops (the Davidian compound in Waco and Ruby Ridge) even though thy were really of no threat to others at that point. You may be able to make the case the Davidians were a threat to some of their own followers, but in the end the FBI actions resulted in the death of a lot of kids.
So, give us something to justify your bull gak comments, because it seems you are talking out of your ass.
von Hohenstein wrote: If these guys were black, they would have been shoot by the police days ago.
If these quys were muslims, they would have been shot by the military days ago.
But they are white, so they are allowed to do their thing.
At least this is how it looks like from the other side of the ocean. Why are these guys still not arrested?
Why would we care how it looks on the other side of the ocean?
Because this board has users from many countries, and they are all allowed to participate in discussion without their viewpoint being derided like that
von Hohenstein wrote: If these guys were black, they would have been shoot by the police days ago.
If these quys were muslims, they would have been shot by the military days ago.
But they are white, so they are allowed to do their thing.
At least this is how it looks like from the other side of the ocean. Why are these guys still not arrested?
Why would we care how it looks on the other side of the ocean?
Because this board has users from many countries, and they are all allowed to participate in discussion without their viewpoint being derided like that
A viewpoint based on no fact/evidence probably is worth derision. And his viewpoint is based on nothing but emotion.
CptJake wrote: On the other hand, I can show examples where whites were killed by cops (the Davidian compound in Waco and Ruby Ridge) even though thy were really of no threat to others at that point. Y.
In the example of Waco, arguing that a guy who was marrying and molesting 10 year old girls wasn't really a threat to others is a hard sell.
edit: you've since updated your post to address this.
CptJake wrote: A viewpoint based on no fact/evidence probably is worth derision. And his viewpoint is based on nothing but emotion.
Then maybe that's the point he should have made, instead of simply dismissing anything he said because of his location.
Which had nothing really to do with the race of the folks, and instead was a VERY poor tactical choice made by city cops who were in an actual fire fight with a group known for shooting at and killing cops. And the city gov't lost a civil suit over it, though unfortunately the mayor and police commissioner never facd criminal charges.
One of the reasons the bombing was so disastrous was because unlike what Bundy and his fellow crazies are doing in the woods of Oregon, MOVE was in the middle of Philli.
The militia is an essential part of asserting your citizenship. State/Fed authority can become corrupt (which especially most of the administrative branches of fed govt are). Its about time people give the feds the bird. If I didn't have young children, I'd be tempted to go up there too.
For all of you socialist/strong central govt lackeys/advocates - good proper govt isn't a majority rules matter. Matters of powerful legislation should be kept closer to the people, and when that form fails, hopefully you still have something like the second amendment, and you 'qualify' with the govt.... oh wait...
kveldulf wrote: The militia is an essential part of asserting your citizenship. State/Fed authority can become corrupt (which especially most of the administrative branches of fed govt are). Its about time people give the feds the bird. If I didn't have young children, I'd be tempted to go up there too.
Wait, if you didn't have children you'd go sit in a hut as an act of solidarity for some child abusers who committed arson?
CptJake wrote: On the other hand, I can show examples where whites were killed by cops (the Davidian compound in Waco and Ruby Ridge) even though thy were really of no threat to others at that point. Y.
In the example of Waco, arguing that a guy who was marrying and molesting 10 year old girls wasn't really a threat to others is a hard sell.
As bad as that was, initiating tactics that caused those same children to die in a fire isn't really something to give out medals for. I like to think that the Feds have learned from the debacles of Move, Waco, and Ruby Ridge.
Which had nothing really to do with the race of the folks, and instead was a VERY poor tactical choice made by city cops who were in an actual fire fight with a group known for shooting at and killing cops. And the city gov't lost a civil suit over it, though unfortunately the mayor and police commissioner never facd criminal charges.
One of the reasons the bombing was so disastrous was because unlike what Bundy and his fellow crazies are doing in the woods of Oregon, MOVE was in the middle of Philli.
[MOD EDIT - LET'S NOT MAKE ALLEGATIONS LIKE THAT, OK? - ALPHARIUS] they weren't known for killing cops, a single cop died in 1978, 1 not plural. the one that died was shot in the back, probably by his fellow officers, and of course they blame the black guys.
the cops showed up to "evict" the group from living in their home. they brought bombs as a "entry device" and a helicopter with 1lb bombs, then the cops shot anyone leaving the building. so their choice was to burn or get shot. the cops shot first, the people inside were exercising their second amendment rights to own guns and used them to defend themselves. and during all that chaos, not a single officer was wounded. it wasn't a shoot out, it was the cops murdering, Eleven people (John Africa, five other adults and five children aged 7 to 13) died in the resulting fire and more than 250 people were left homeless.
It's like a trend, when the cops murder people of a certain race, they never face criminal charges.
and why didn't the cops like this group, oh ya, they were protesting against racism and police brutality.
Which had nothing really to do with the race of the folks, and instead was a VERY poor tactical choice made by city cops who were in an actual fire fight with a group known for shooting at and killing cops. And the city gov't lost a civil suit over it, though unfortunately the mayor and police commissioner never facd criminal charges.
One of the reasons the bombing was so disastrous was because unlike what Bundy and his fellow crazies are doing in the woods of Oregon, MOVE was in the middle of Philli.
wow those are some racist lenses your looking through. they weren't known for killing cops, a single cop died in 1978, 1 not plural. the one that died was shot in the back, probably by his fellow officers, and of course they blame the black guys.
the cops showed up to "evict" the group from living in their home. they brought bombs as a "entry device" and a helicopter with 1lb bombs, then the cops shot anyone leaving the building. so their choice was to burn or get shot. the cops shot first, the people inside were exercising their second amendment rights to own guns and used them to defend themselves. and during all that chaos, not a single officer was wounded. it wasn't a shoot out, it was the cops murdering, Eleven people (John Africa, five other adults and five children aged 7 to 13) died in the resulting fire and more than 250 people were left homeless.
It's like a trend, when the cops murder people of a certain race, they never face criminal charges.
and why didn't the cops like this group, oh ya, they were protesting against racism and police brutality.
Several other police and firefighters were also injured during the incident the cop was killed in, however.
Even though MOVE wasn't in any way a group of harmless innocents, most people I know that live in PA were outraged over the tactics the police used and were scandalized that those who planned and approved it got away with it.
kveldulf wrote: The militia is an essential part of asserting your citizenship. State/Fed authority can become corrupt (which especially most of the administrative branches of fed govt are). Its about time people give the feds the bird. If I didn't have young children, I'd be tempted to go up there too.
kveldulf wrote: The militia is an essential part of asserting your citizenship. State/Fed authority can become corrupt (which especially most of the administrative branches of fed govt are). Its about time people give the feds the bird. If I didn't have young children, I'd be tempted to go up there too.
Wait, if you didn't have children you'd go sit in a hut, as an act of solidarity for some child abusers who committed arson?
Child abusers? - for some reason i haven't heard about that with the Hammonds...
Villifying them and essentially me, with gross labels & notions -that ignore any of the context of the situaton - tells me that you are just another person who really hates the seperation of powers, good representation & citizenry.
kveldulf wrote: The militia is an essential part of asserting your citizenship. State/Fed authority can become corrupt (which especially most of the administrative branches of fed govt are). Its about time people give the feds the bird. If I didn't have young children, I'd be tempted to go up there too.
That's a load of horsecrap through and through.
Because corruption doesn't happen in govt...?
Let's just hand wave history. We're civilized, that'll never happen. People are basically good eh?
I prefer reality, where we recognize that people are inherently flawed/evil, and govt should remain closer to the people... you know to be more accountable to the people...
kveldulf wrote: The militia is an essential part of asserting your citizenship. State/Fed authority can become corrupt (which especially most of the administrative branches of fed govt are). Its about time people give the feds the bird. If I didn't have young children, I'd be tempted to go up there too.
Wait, if you didn't have children you'd go sit in a hut, as an act of solidarity for some child abusers who committed arson?
Child abusers? - for some reason i haven't heard about that with the Hammonds...
Villifying them and essentially me, with gross labels & notions -that ignore any of the context of the situaton - tells me that you are just another person who really hates the seperation of powers, good representation & citizenry.
Then you haven't actually read anything about the Hammonds, at all. Part of their trial involved one of their children, who had scars that he inflicted upon himself(carved his initials into his chest with a paper clip or some such silliness) sanded off.
If you look through this very thread, you can find the information.
kveldulf wrote: The militia is an essential part of asserting your citizenship. State/Fed authority can become corrupt (which especially most of the administrative branches of fed govt are). Its about time people give the feds the bird. If I didn't have young children, I'd be tempted to go up there too.
That's a load of horsecrap through and through.
Because corruption doesn't happen in govt...?
Pretending that it happens solely at the state/federal level is idiocy. Pretending that it is anything that a militia can affect?
Grandstanding of the highest caliber and a gross misunderstanding of government.
Let's just hand wave history. We're civilized, that'll never happen. People are basically good eh?
Strawman much?
I prefer reality, where we recognize that people are inherently flawed/evil, and govt should remain closer to the people... you know to be more accountable to the people...
Accountability != Guns waved in the air like you just don't care.
You want a government to remain closer to the people? Start voting better.
Want a government that is more accountable to the people? Start voting better.
And for the love of all that's holy, get money out of politics.
kveldulf wrote: Matters of powerful legislation should be kept closer to the people
Closer to the people, like a Direct Democracy? But I thought:
kveldulf wrote: good proper govt isn't a majority rules matter.
Ultimately law cannot be held absolutely subject to a majority and it remain legit, but yes since we are imperfect, it gets to a point where a majority vote must be determined on matters less self -evident (think matters of education, utilities, building codes, welfare, tax colectionary - though i believe private institutions can cover mist of these particular ones). However, it doesn't mean you have to accept, so moving might be an option... or arms
The US govt held that federalism was the best option to keep more and more power at the bottom, and less when you go up - Jackson's view of the pyramid of appropriate government.
kveldulf wrote: Child abusers? - for some reason i haven't heard about that with the Hammonds...
Villifying them and essentially me, with gross labels & notions -that ignore any of the context of the situaton - tells me that you are just another person who really hates the seperation of powers, good representation & citizenry.
kveldulf wrote: Child abusers? - for some reason i haven't heard about that with the Hammonds...
Villifying them and essentially me, with gross labels & notions -that ignore any of the context of the situaton - tells me that you are just another person who really hates the seperation of powers, good representation & citizenry.
Hmmm... if roughing up a 6'2 200 lbs 'kid' who isn't minding his parents... who later ends up carving on himself... and you use sand paper to remove the initials on his chest.... is abuse, well, I don't know. I don't know the whole situation. That sounds like a pretty extreme thing all around, not just a parental one.
That's an awful big kid though.... and frankly if my large kid of 16 was doing that to himself.... I'd take some extreme measures too. My dad has a story of him experiencing some extreme correction after saying no in a cavalier way - when he was a teen. His face was planted on the wall. Was it the greatest solution, probably not.
Ultimately what they did, and what they did with backfire are two different things. Everyone is going to have ghosts in their closet... including everyone in this thread.
The feds encroaching on stuff is a reality, and one I'm more than happy to take a stand, support and have a chance to-face to-face network on.
kveldulf wrote: Child abusers? - for some reason i haven't heard about that with the Hammonds...
Villifying them and essentially me, with gross labels & notions -that ignore any of the context of the situaton - tells me that you are just another person who really hates the seperation of powers, good representation & citizenry.
Hmmm... if roughing up a 6'2 200 lbs 'kid' who isn't minding his parents... who later ends up carving on himself... and you use sand paper to remove the initials on his chest.... is abuse, well, I don't know. I don't know the whole situation. That sounds like a pretty extreme thing all around, not just a parental one.
That's an awful big kid though.... and frankly if my large kid of 16 was doing that to himself.... I'd take some extreme measures too. My dad has a story of him experiencing some extreme correction after saying no in a cavalier way - when he was a teen. His face was planted on the wall.
Ultimately what they did, and what they did with backfire are two different things. Everyone is going to have ghosts in their closet... including everyone in this thread.
The feds encroaching on stuff is a reality, and one I'm more than happy to take a stand, support and have a chance to-face to-face network on.
So you are saying you would actually hold down a kid and sandpaper his skin off? Wow
kveldulf wrote: Child abusers? - for some reason i haven't heard about that with the Hammonds...
Villifying them and essentially me, with gross labels & notions -that ignore any of the context of the situaton - tells me that you are just another person who really hates the seperation of powers, good representation & citizenry.
Hmmm... if roughing up a 6'2 200 lbs 'kid' who isn't minding his parents... who later ends up carving on himself... and you use sand paper to remove the initials on his chest.... is abuse, well, I don't know. I don't know the whole situation. That sounds like a pretty extreme thing all around, not just a parental one.
There is no if. That is abuse. Period. The size of a child has absolutely no bearing on the matter.
That's an awful big kid though.... and frankly if my large kid of 16 was doing that to himself.... I'd take some extreme measures too. My dad has a story of him experiencing some extreme correction after saying no in a cavalier way - when he was a teen. His face was planted on the wall.
If a kid is self harming then the very last thing they need is their family inflicting more harm to them. If your "extreme measures" to "correct" your self harming child involve any form of physical violence then you should not have custody of that child or any other child as you are unfit to be a parent.
Ultimately what they did, and what they did with backfire are two different things. Everyone is going to have ghosts in their closet... including everyone in this thread.
I have never physically assaulted children or committed arson to cover up illegal poaching.
Dude..... if my kid was carving crap into his skin.... yea, it might just be an option. That would seriously piss me off. Save the psych BS, I don't think something like that is fixed with brain shrinking and drugs.
kveldulf wrote: Dude..... if my kid was carving crap into his skin.... yea, it might just be an option. That would seriously piss me off. Save the psych BS, I don't think something like that is fixed with brain shrinking and drugs.
I fear for your children or future children because you will be a terrible parent
kveldulf wrote: Dude..... if my kid was carving crap into his skin.... yea, it might just be an option. That would seriously piss me off. Save the psych BS, I don't think something like that is fixed with brain shrinking and drugs.
And onto ignore you go. You should probably see a psychiatrist as you apparently have severe anger issues which will probably get you into serious trouble some day.
kveldulf wrote: Hmmm... if roughing up a 6'2 200 lbs 'kid' who isn't minding his parents... who later ends up carving on himself... and you use sand paper to remove the initials on his chest.... is abuse, well, I don't know.
You don't know? In what twisted, fethed up world is taking sandpaper to your child's chest *not* abuse?
That's an awful big kid though.... and frankly if my large kid of 16 was doing that to himself.... I'd take some extreme measures too.
Extreme Measures =/= Sanding down a 16 year old's chest.
My dad has a story of him experiencing some extreme correction after saying no in a cavalier way - when he was a teen. His face was planted on the wall.
Oh, well if your dad got thrown into a wall when he was younger then it's all fine and dandy. Break out the 32 grit I say, let's make it a party.
kveldulf wrote: Dude..... if my kid was carving crap into his skin.... yea, it might just be an option. That would seriously piss me off. Save the psych BS, I don't think something like that is fixed with brain shrinking and drugs.
Wow. Just. Wow.
It's not often you see someone openly declare their use of physical abuse on their children. You need some help.
kveldulf wrote: Child abusers? - for some reason i haven't heard about that with the Hammonds...
Villifying them and essentially me, with gross labels & notions -that ignore any of the context of the situaton - tells me that you are just another person who really hates the seperation of powers, good representation & citizenry.
Hmmm... if roughing up a 6'2 200 lbs 'kid' who isn't minding his parents... who later ends up carving on himself... and you use sand paper to remove the initials on his chest.... is abuse, well, I don't know. I don't know the whole situation. That sounds like a pretty extreme thing all around, not just a parental one.
There is no if. That is abuse. Period. The size of a child has absolutely no bearing on the matter.
That's an awful big kid though.... and frankly if my large kid of 16 was doing that to himself.... I'd take some extreme measures too. My dad has a story of him experiencing some extreme correction after saying no in a cavalier way - when he was a teen. His face was planted on the wall.
If a kid is self harming then the very last thing they need is their family inflicting more harm to them. If your "extreme measures" to correct your child from committing self harm involve any form of physical violence then you should not have custody of that child or any other child as you are unfit to be a parent.
Ultimately what they did, and what they did with backfire are two different things. Everyone is going to have ghosts in their closet... including everyone in this thread.
I have never physically assaulted children or committed arson to cover up illegal poaching.
BS when you are standing near as tall as me, almost old enough to die in war then holding hands is the last thing a boy needs. Hopefully he's already got a good handle of respecting authority by 16, but if he hasnt figured it out by then, then a paddle or belt is in order at the very least.
The covering up of poaching... or just sitting on their character to justify stupid minimum sentences of 'terrorism' is slowed.
kveldulf wrote: Dude..... if my kid was carving crap into his skin.... yea, it might just be an option. That would seriously piss me off. Save the psych BS, I don't think something like that is fixed with brain shrinking and drugs.
Wow. Just. Wow.
It's not often you see someone openly declare their use of physical abuse on their children. You need some help.
Not to mention the complete disregard of science involved in thinking that he knows better how to fix mental health problems than trained mental health doctors.
kveldulf wrote: Dude..... if my kid was carving crap into his skin.... yea, it might just be an option. That would seriously piss me off. Save the psych BS, I don't think something like that is fixed with brain shrinking and drugs.
Wow. Just. Wow.
It's not often you see someone openly declare their use of physical abuse on their children. You need some help.
I spank my children. If you don't think it's an option, ok. I think not spanking them is child abuse - unless they're perfect or do little to merit it.
kveldulf wrote: Hopefully he's already got a good handle of respecting authority by 16, but if he hasnt figured it out by then, then a paddle or belt is in order at the very least.
I don't know... You seem to be pretty disrespectful of the authority of the federal government. Has your father taken sandpaper to your chest to correct this yet?
kveldulf wrote: Dude..... if my kid was carving crap into his skin.... yea, it might just be an option. That would seriously piss me off. Save the psych BS, I don't think something like that is fixed with brain shrinking and drugs.
Wow. Just. Wow.
It's not often you see someone openly declare their use of physical abuse on their children. You need some help.
I spank my children. If you don't think it's an option, ok. I think not spanking them is child abuse - unless they're perfect.
Not surprised in the least that hitting your children is part of your system.
And you've also declared you'd be willing to take sandpaper to a child as well.
I spank my children. If you don't think it's an option, ok. I think not spanking them is child abuse - unless they're perfect.
kveldulf wrote: BS when you are standing near as tall as me, almost old enough to die in war then holding hands is the last thing a boy needs. Hopefully he's already got a good handle of respecting authority by 16, but if he hasnt figured it out by then, then a paddle or belt is in order at the very least.
And this, ladies and gentlemen, is precisely why all forms of corporal punishment should be illegal.
Because otherwise you get idiots who can't tell the difference between giving a child a little smack and flogging them until they bleed or sanding their skin off and they think it is acceptable behaviour and not against the law.
As far govt goes I believe in good govt. I don't believe in unlimited submission to civil govt though, as delineation is important or else the state may turn into a God.
As far as, conflict resolution. I teach my kids prior to the spanking what they did wrong, and after, I hold them. I want them to remember what they did. I offer ample warning before I resort to it.
I might be a socialist, but at least I don't advocate the sand-papering of children. Even evil has standards.
FWIW whether you'd be pissed at your child if something similar to that described above happened should have absolutely fething NO bearing on the punishment; you're not supposed to be punishing because you feel annoyed.
People certainly are flawed though, you've proven that beyond a doubt.
Today, I learned that sandpapering a child's chest is the same as spanking him, and thus it's totally okay if you don't like what they did. Who knew, right?
Of course, that really doesn't have much to do with the topic - since the Hammonds have stated Bundy's group don't represent them - but the more you know...
I'm waiting for a third group to show up to help the people Bundy's militia don't want helping them, followed by a statement from said second group that the newcomers aren't welcome, and so on and so forth until everyone gets bored and gives up.
I spank my children. If you don't think it's an option, ok. I think not spanking them is child abuse - unless they're perfect.
kveldulf wrote: BS when you are standing near as tall as me, almost old enough to die in war then holding hands is the last thing a boy needs. Hopefully he's already got a good handle of respecting authority by 16, but if he hasnt figured it out by then, then a paddle or belt is in order at the very least.
And this, ladies and gentlemen, is precisely why all forms of corporal punishment should be illegal.
Because otherwise you get idiots who can't tell the difference between giving a child a little smack and flogging them until they bleed or sanding their skin off and they think it is acceptable behaviour and not against the law.
And putting them on anti depressant / antI psychotics is any better? Especially when they increas suicidal tendencies and mass shootings?
Please.... your moral justification is purely from a collective viewpoint. Mine is at least referencing some manner of natural law.
I spank my children. If you don't think it's an option, ok. I think not spanking them is child abuse - unless they're perfect.
kveldulf wrote: BS when you are standing near as tall as me, almost old enough to die in war then holding hands is the last thing a boy needs. Hopefully he's already got a good handle of respecting authority by 16, but if he hasnt figured it out by then, then a paddle or belt is in order at the very least.
And this, ladies and gentlemen, is precisely why all forms of corporal punishment should be illegal.
Because otherwise you get idiots who can't tell the difference between giving a child a little smack and flogging them until they bleed or sanding their skin off and they think it is acceptable behaviour and not against the law.
And putting them on anti depressant / antI psychotics is any better? Especially when they increas suicidal tendencies and mass shootings?
Please.... your moral justification is purely from a collective viewpoint. Mine is at least referencing some manner of natural law.
I spank my children. If you don't think it's an option, ok. I think not spanking them is child abuse - unless they're perfect.
kveldulf wrote: BS when you are standing near as tall as me, almost old enough to die in war then holding hands is the last thing a boy needs. Hopefully he's already got a good handle of respecting authority by 16, but if he hasnt figured it out by then, then a paddle or belt is in order at the very least.
And this, ladies and gentlemen, is precisely why all forms of corporal punishment should be illegal.
Because otherwise you get idiots who can't tell the difference between giving a child a little smack and flogging them until they bleed or sanding their skin off and they think it is acceptable behaviour and not against the law.
And putting them on anti depressant / antI psychotics is any better? Especially when they increas suicidal tendencies and mass shootings?
Please.... your moral justification is purely from a collective viewpoint. Mine is at least referencing some manner of natural law.
Giving them medicine, which has no correlation to mass shootings but try again, or physically hurting them with sandpaper because you can't be asked to be a good parent. Hmm I wonder whats better
kveldulf wrote: As far govt goes I believe in good govt. I don't believe in unlimited submission to civil govt though, as delineation is important or else the state may turn into a God.
As far as, conflict resolution. I teach my kids prior to the spanking what they did wrong, and after, I hold them. I want them to remember what they did. I offer ample warning before I resort to it.
well I guess if you can't parent by earning respect and trust, then fear and intimidation works just as well
how can you teach him to respect authority, when you clearly don't?
kveldulf wrote: As far govt goes I believe in good govt. I don't believe in unlimited submission to civil govt though, as delineation is important or else the state may turn into a God.
As far as, conflict resolution. I teach my kids prior to the spanking what they did wrong, and after, I hold them. I want them to remember what they did. I offer ample warning before I resort to it.
well I guess if you can't parent by earning respect and trust, then fear and intimidation works just as well
how can you teach him to respect authority, when you clearly don't?
That though does not mean that we can just drop a GBU onto them and be done with it. I do love seeing all the gung ho "kill them!" posts though.
If a single bullet comes flying out of that building they would deserve a full and lethal response.
But I doubt that even those guys are dumb enough for that. So set up a perimeter, starve them out, arrest them when they either come out with their tails between their legs or pass out from a hunger strike.
Here's what rubs me the wrong way about all this: Where's the line? Do folks just get to take over any government property they want just because they're armed? How remote does a place have to be before we stop letting this stuff slide? Would this be the right approach for a place that got twice as much traffic, 5 times, 10 times, 100 times? Would we just let them hold the visitor center at major national park? What if they had more supplies?
There has to be some kind of assertion of government authority, at least on a symbolic level. All leaving them alone does is tell every set of yahoos with guns that they're free to take over things as they please for however long their supplies hold out. I wouldn't advocate gunning these guys down or anything but surely we must have something that can lob a couple industrial-sized tear gas canisters in their general direction.
Right now they're saying "We have the right to deny federal authority. We have the right to take over this building." by not actively stopping them, we're kind of saying "Yes. Yes you do. Carry on. "
I spank my children. If you don't think it's an option, ok. I think not spanking them is child abuse - unless they're perfect.
kveldulf wrote: BS when you are standing near as tall as me, almost old enough to die in war then holding hands is the last thing a boy needs. Hopefully he's already got a good handle of respecting authority by 16, but if he hasnt figured it out by then, then a paddle or belt is in order at the very least.
And this, ladies and gentlemen, is precisely why all forms of corporal punishment should be illegal.
Because otherwise you get idiots who can't tell the difference between giving a child a little smack and flogging them until they bleed or sanding their skin off and they think it is acceptable behaviour and not against the law.
And putting them on anti depressant / antI psychotics is any better? Especially when they increas suicidal tendencies and mass shootings?
Please.... your moral justification is purely from a collective viewpoint. Mine is at least referencing some manner of natural law.
...define 'natural law', please? I'm curious.
Google it. Sir William Blackstone has a pretty good book about it.
That though does not mean that we can just drop a GBU onto them and be done with it. I do love seeing all the gung ho "kill them!" posts though.
If a single bullet comes flying out of that building they would deserve a full and lethal response.
But I doubt that even those guys are dumb enough for that. So set up a perimeter, starve them out, arrest them when they either come out with their tails between their legs or pass out from a hunger strike.
Here's what rubs me the wrong way about all this: Where's the line? Do folks just get to take over any government property they want just because they're armed? How remote does a place have to be before we stop letting this stuff slide? Would this be the right approach for a place that got twice as much traffic, 5 times, 10 times, 100 times? Would we just let them hold the visitor center at major national park? What if they had more supplies?
There has to be some kind of assertion of government authority, at least on a symbolic level. All leaving them alone does is tell every set of yahoos with guns that they're free to take over things as they please for however long their supplies hold out. I wouldn't advocate gunning these guys down or anything but surely we must have something that can lob a couple industrial-sized tear gas canisters in their general direction.
Right now they're saying "We have the right to deny federal authority. We have the right to take over this building." by not actively stopping them, we're kind of saying "Yes. Yes you do. Carry on. "
I think the siege tactic is the best available to them at the moment. If this was an important facility, like a state capitol building, I think the FBI would be looking into a way to resolve it as fast as possible.
But in this case, it's a shuttered building not in use. The options are risk an armed confrontation or simply wait for them to freeze and starve. Given those two options, I think that the option to wait it out is the best for everyone. I agree it doesn't send a very strong message, but a building full of dead bodies doesn't send a very good message either (a la' the Waco tx siege).
kveldulf wrote: Child abusers? - for some reason i haven't heard about that with the Hammonds...
Villifying them and essentially me, with gross labels & notions -that ignore any of the context of the situaton - tells me that you are just another person who really hates the seperation of powers, good representation & citizenry.
Hmmm... if roughing up a 6'2 200 lbs 'kid' who isn't minding his parents... who later ends up carving on himself... and you use sand paper to remove the initials on his chest.... is abuse, well, I don't know. I don't know the whole situation. That sounds like a pretty extreme thing all around, not just a parental one.
That's an awful big kid though.... and frankly if my large kid of 16 was doing that to himself.... I'd take some extreme measures too. My dad has a story of him experiencing some extreme correction after saying no in a cavalier way - when he was a teen. His face was planted on the wall. Was it the greatest solution, probably not.
It was child abuse. You will go on ignore if you don't post into this thread "That was child abuse." You're on the clock...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
kveldulf wrote: Dude..... if my kid was carving crap into his skin.... yea, it might just be an option. That would seriously piss me off. Save the psych BS, I don't think something like that is fixed with brain shrinking and drugs.
Nevermind. Missed this post. Ignore you go. You have nothing of value to say.
Google it. Sir William Blackstone has a pretty good book about it.
This explains so many things...
Anyway;
Here's what rubs me the wrong way about all this: Where's the line? Do folks just get to take over any government property they want just because they're armed? How remote does a place have to be before we stop letting this stuff slide? Would this be the right approach for a place that got twice as much traffic, 5 times, 10 times, 100 times? Would we just let them hold the visitor center at major national park? What if they had more supplies?
There has to be some kind of assertion of government authority, at least on a symbolic level. All leaving them alone does is tell every set of yahoos with guns that they're free to take over things as they please for however long their supplies hold out. I wouldn't advocate gunning these guys down or anything but surely we must have something that can lob a couple industrial-sized tear gas canisters in their general direction.
Right now they're saying "We have the right to deny federal authority. We have the right to take over this building." by not actively stopping them, we're kind of saying "Yes. Yes you do. Carry on. "
Definitely with Chongara on this. I think the measured reaction to the Bundy Standoff was the right thing to do at the time, but the FBI has been too slow in bringing down ramifications for what happened then. The lack of a government response clearly emboldened the first group to start this, and now others are joining in. But I think the government can wait until these guys run out of supplies and then throw the book at them. The clearly defined line has been unquestionably crossed and while they're charging them with a number of crimes for taking over a government building, charges can be filled for what happened at Bundy's ranch as well.
That though does not mean that we can just drop a GBU onto them and be done with it. I do love seeing all the gung ho "kill them!" posts though.
If a single bullet comes flying out of that building they would deserve a full and lethal response.
But I doubt that even those guys are dumb enough for that. So set up a perimeter, starve them out, arrest them when they either come out with their tails between their legs or pass out from a hunger strike.
Here's what rubs me the wrong way about all this: Where's the line? Do folks just get to take over any government property they want just because they're armed? How remote does a place have to be before we stop letting this stuff slide? Would this be the right approach for a place that got twice as much traffic, 5 times, 10 times, 100 times? Would we just let them hold the visitor center at major national park? What if they had more supplies?
There has to be some kind of assertion of government authority, at least on a symbolic level. All leaving them alone does is tell every set of yahoos with guns that they're free to take over things as they please for however long their supplies hold out. I wouldn't advocate gunning these guys down or anything but surely we must have something that can lob a couple industrial-sized tear gas canisters in their general direction.
Right now they're saying "We have the right to deny federal authority. We have the right to take over this building." by not actively stopping them, we're kind of saying "Yes. Yes you do. Carry on. "
I think the siege tactic is the best available to them at the moment. If this was an important facility, like a state capitol building, I think the FBI would be looking into a way to resolve it as fast as possible.
But in this case, it's a shuttered building not in use. The options are risk an armed confrontation or simply wait for them to freeze and starve. Given those two options, I think that the option to wait it out is the best for everyone. I agree it doesn't send a very strong message, but a building full of dead bodies doesn't send a very good message either (a la' the Waco tx siege).
As stated a few pages back the local Indians aren't very happy about this, because it is spiritual land to them. The Feds could just look the other way when they form a blockade around the area and starve bundy and company out.
Google it. Sir William Blackstone has a pretty good book about it.
This explains so many things...
Anyway;
Here's what rubs me the wrong way about all this: Where's the line? Do folks just get to take over any government property they want just because they're armed? How remote does a place have to be before we stop letting this stuff slide? Would this be the right approach for a place that got twice as much traffic, 5 times, 10 times, 100 times? Would we just let them hold the visitor center at major national park? What if they had more supplies?
There has to be some kind of assertion of government authority, at least on a symbolic level. All leaving them alone does is tell every set of yahoos with guns that they're free to take over things as they please for however long their supplies hold out. I wouldn't advocate gunning these guys down or anything but surely we must have something that can lob a couple industrial-sized tear gas canisters in their general direction.
Right now they're saying "We have the right to deny federal authority. We have the right to take over this building." by not actively stopping them, we're kind of saying "Yes. Yes you do. Carry on. "
Definitely with Chongara on this. I think the measured reaction to the Bundy Standoff was the right thing to do at the time, but the FBI has been too slow in bringing down ramifications for what happened then. The lack of a government response clearly emboldened the first group to start this, and now others are joining in. But I think the government can wait until these guys run out of supplies and then throw the book at them. The clearly defined line has been unquestionably crossed and while they're charging them with a number of crimes for taking over a government building, charges can be filled for what happened at Bundy's ranch as well.
Just charge them with subversive conspiracy and send them to federal prison for 20 years
I think you mean seditious conspiracy, 18 U.S. Code § 2384. Which, by the way, doesn't have a recent successful track record prosecution wise, although these guys have with their own words really built a case in my opinion.
Definitely with Chongara on this. I think the measured reaction to the Bundy Standoff was the right thing to do at the time, but the FBI has been too slow in bringing down ramifications for what happened then. The lack of a government response clearly emboldened the first group to start this, and now others are joining in. But I think the government can wait until these guys run out of supplies and then throw the book at them. The clearly defined line has been unquestionably crossed and while they're charging them with a number of crimes for taking over a government building, charges can be filled for what happened at Bundy's ranch as well.
That is a good point - IIRC, this group is being headed by the sons of that original rancher, and I'm sure their success in that matter did embolden them to do this.
That being said, the feds are in a position where they're going to be labeled as either limp-wristed sissies, or jack-booted fascists, so I think they're going with the lesser of two evils.
Time is on the fed's side - though I do hope that the militiamen get punished sufficiently to discourage this sort of behavior. Because if someone gets emboldened enough to do seize something important (like city/state capitol), bad times will be had by all.
That though does not mean that we can just drop a GBU onto them and be done with it. I do love seeing all the gung ho "kill them!" posts though.
If a single bullet comes flying out of that building they would deserve a full and lethal response.
But I doubt that even those guys are dumb enough for that. So set up a perimeter, starve them out, arrest them when they either come out with their tails between their legs or pass out from a hunger strike.
Here's what rubs me the wrong way about all this: Where's the line? Do folks just get to take over any government property they want just because they're armed? How remote does a place have to be before we stop letting this stuff slide? Would this be the right approach for a place that got twice as much traffic, 5 times, 10 times, 100 times? Would we just let them hold the visitor center at major national park? What if they had more supplies?
There has to be some kind of assertion of government authority, at least on a symbolic level. All leaving them alone does is tell every set of yahoos with guns that they're free to take over things as they please for however long their supplies hold out. I wouldn't advocate gunning these guys down or anything but surely we must have something that can lob a couple industrial-sized tear gas canisters in their general direction.
Right now they're saying "We have the right to deny federal authority. We have the right to take over this building." by not actively stopping them, we're kind of saying "Yes. Yes you do. Carry on. "
I don't think it's that simple, because the people do have the right to assemble and protest. government sit in's used to be a common form of protest.
Occupy was camped out in a park for 2 months, now you have this heavily armed militia waving guns about threatening violence, so shouldn't they get the same leeway? the big difference I see here is the militia has threatened violence and that alone should warrant them being arrested and charged with everything between trespassing to terrorism.
That though does not mean that we can just drop a GBU onto them and be done with it. I do love seeing all the gung ho "kill them!" posts though.
If a single bullet comes flying out of that building they would deserve a full and lethal response.
But I doubt that even those guys are dumb enough for that. So set up a perimeter, starve them out, arrest them when they either come out with their tails between their legs or pass out from a hunger strike.
Here's what rubs me the wrong way about all this: Where's the line? Do folks just get to take over any government property they want just because they're armed? How remote does a place have to be before we stop letting this stuff slide? Would this be the right approach for a place that got twice as much traffic, 5 times, 10 times, 100 times? Would we just let them hold the visitor center at major national park? What if they had more supplies?
There has to be some kind of assertion of government authority, at least on a symbolic level. All leaving them alone does is tell every set of yahoos with guns that they're free to take over things as they please for however long their supplies hold out. I wouldn't advocate gunning these guys down or anything but surely we must have something that can lob a couple industrial-sized tear gas canisters in their general direction.
Right now they're saying "We have the right to deny federal authority. We have the right to take over this building." by not actively stopping them, we're kind of saying "Yes. Yes you do. Carry on. "
I don't think it's that simple, because the people do have the right to assemble and protest. government sit in's used to be a common form of protest.
Occupy was camped out in a park for 2 months, now you have this heavily armed militia waving guns about threatening violence, so shouldn't they get the same leeway? the big difference I see here is the militia has threatened violence and that alone should warrant them being arrested and charged with everything between trespassing to terrorism.
If they hadn't brought their guns and openly refuted the idea of the legitimacy of federal power over them and that land? Sure, they get some consideration.
Sitting in a park unarmed and going "We don't like the way things have been handled. We'd rather they were handled differently"
is a far cry from sitting in that same park, armed and going:
"The government has no right to own this park. We don't wish things were handled differently, the government has no right to handle it at all"
If these guys had waltzed into the exact same building without guns and said "We recognize the authority of the federal government to regulate land use but think that these specific laws are unfair for the following reasons" I'd be singing a different tune. Those guys I'd be fine with. Those guys I wouldn't want them to lob tear gas at.
sirlynchmob wrote: I get that part, the thing that makes me cringe is the thought of drawing hard lines in the sand and what is an acceptable area for a protest.
Once you pull a gun on Uncle Sam, it isn't a protest anymore.
The legitimacy of the grievances isn't really at issue (I mean, they'd still be idiots, but most of us would brush them off as wackos and go about the day).
If they hadn't brought their guns and openly refuted the idea of the legitimacy of federal power over them and that land? Sure, they get some consideration.
Sitting in a park unarmed and going "We don't like the way things have been handled. We'd rather they were handled differently" is a far cry from sitting in that same park, armed and going: "The government has no right to own this park. We don't wish things were handled differently, the government has no right to handle it at all"
If these guys had waltzed into the exact same building without guns and said "We recognize the authority of the federal government to regulate land use but think that these specific laws are unfair for the following reasons" I'd be singing a different tune. Those guys I'd be fine with. Those guys I wouldn't want them to lob tear gas at.
Sadly, the Bundy Clan is not know for their restraint, their tact, or their smarts.
That though does not mean that we can just drop a GBU onto them and be done with it. I do love seeing all the gung ho "kill them!" posts though.
If a single bullet comes flying out of that building they would deserve a full and lethal response.
But I doubt that even those guys are dumb enough for that. So set up a perimeter, starve them out, arrest them when they either come out with their tails between their legs or pass out from a hunger strike.
Here's what rubs me the wrong way about all this: Where's the line? Do folks just get to take over any government property they want just because they're armed? How remote does a place have to be before we stop letting this stuff slide? Would this be the right approach for a place that got twice as much traffic, 5 times, 10 times, 100 times? Would we just let them hold the visitor center at major national park? What if they had more supplies?
There has to be some kind of assertion of government authority, at least on a symbolic level. All leaving them alone does is tell every set of yahoos with guns that they're free to take over things as they please for however long their supplies hold out. I wouldn't advocate gunning these guys down or anything but surely we must have something that can lob a couple industrial-sized tear gas canisters in their general direction.
Right now they're saying "We have the right to deny federal authority. We have the right to take over this building." by not actively stopping them, we're kind of saying "Yes. Yes you do. Carry on. "
I don't think it's that simple, because the people do have the right to assemble and protest. government sit in's used to be a common form of protest.
Occupy was camped out in a park for 2 months, now you have this heavily armed militia waving guns about threatening violence, so shouldn't they get the same leeway? the big difference I see here is the militia has threatened violence and that alone should warrant them being arrested and charged with everything between trespassing to terrorism.
People have the right to peaceably asssemble. When you bring guns to the assembly and suggest you may use them if authorities try to remove you, you aren't really peaceably assembling anymore. And even if the assembly is peaceable, authorities can place reasonable restrictions on the time, place and manner of the assembly, and it is fairly obvious the protesters are exceeding that.
During past government siting people were prepared to be arrested and ready to serve as the faces of injustice when carried out in cuffs after passively resisting.
LordofHats wrote: The legitimacy of the grievances isn't really at issue (I mean, they'd still be idiots, but most of us would brush them off as wackos and go about the day).
It's voicing them at gunpoint.
This. Guns instantly escalate the situation and if that situation goes bad then you need specialised police to deal with it.
Imagine what would have happened if a sizeable portion of a large protest had rifles and/or handguns. Are there enough firearms response officers to police that kind of event, because you certainly wouldn't want standard cops and anti-riot police in there if it sparked off and went violent. They are not equipped to stand up to guns. A standard riot shield and helmet is great defence against a lobbed brick but less so against a bullet.
Occupy was camped out in a park for 2 months, now you have this heavily armed militia waving guns about threatening violence, so shouldn't they get the same leeway? the big difference I see here is the militia has threatened violence and that alone should warrant them being arrested and charged with everything between trespassing to terrorism.
No. They do not get the same leeway for the reason you posted. Occupy was, for the more part, peaceful assembly. These are nuts with guns threatening violence on "gumment" property.
The fact that the guy they're defending is a child abuser is just icing on the crazy cake.
Just because you're carrying a gun does not make it escalating the situation. If you feel that way ok, but it doesn't make it necessarily true...
Furthermore, fed govt or any govt is not absolute in its authority. After proper petition and discussion, protest is in order, then it progresses from there. That's the sensible order. Right now we are at armed protest because... the BLM has a nasty track record.
Read the below link - its concerning unlimited submission to govt - for those queezy about 'that line'. Yea it's religious in nature but I think it points out a great principle regardless.
Also, the whole issue of federal land is a pretty scary, ridiculous thing. If you look at how much federally owned land there is, it makes you question why even having state lines in some areas. Something needs to be done, as it is just simply too much.... but after the adminstrative branches of fed govt get tucked away into state powers.
We could probably reduce the deficit immensely if the government sold off some of that land which is being unused. It is holding onto an obscene amount of land currently.
Selling land just to sell land also doesn't raise much money. Better to sell it when someone actually wants to develop it for something, which is already what happens.
LordofHats wrote: Selling land just to sell land also doesn't raise much money. Better to sell it when someone actually wants to develop it for something, which is already what happens.
LordofHats wrote: Selling land just to sell land also doesn't raise much money. Better to sell it when someone actually wants to develop it for something, which is already what happens.
LordofHats wrote: Selling land just to sell land also doesn't raise much money. Better to sell it when someone actually wants to develop it for something, which is already what happens.
It ought to be relinquished to the State, if the Feds aren't doing anything with them...
That way, any disagreement the locals have, can contact their state reps without bothering the behemoth that his the Federal Bureaucracy.
von Hohenstein wrote: If these guys were black, they would have been shoot by the police days ago.
If these quys were muslims, they would have been shot by the military days ago.
But they are white, so they are allowed to do their thing.
At least this is how it looks like from the other side of the ocean. Why are these guys still not arrested?
Why would we care how it looks on the other side of the ocean?
Because this board has users from many countries, and they are all allowed to participate in discussion without their viewpoint being derided like that
A viewpoint based on no fact/evidence probably is worth derision. And his viewpoint is based on nothing but emotion.
It's not based on no facts.
"At 6221 Osage Ave., Philadelphia, PA, on May 13, 1985, members of MOVE, a predominantly black organization dedicated to nature, and African tradition, were confronted by the Philadelphia Police Dept., after neighbors complained of MOVE’s constant bullhorn announcements of anti-American sentiment at all hours. In an attempt to clear the building, the police fired tear gas, and the fire dept. hosed the roof with water cannons. A burst of gunfire erupted from inside the building, and the police responded with thousands of rounds of small arms fire for 90 minutes. They then tried to remove two roof structures by dropping a 4 pound bomb of C-4 and Tovex onto the roof. This started a fire that eventually consumed the entire neighborhood. Eleven members of MOVE died in the fire. Only two survived."
d-usa wrote: The Feds are doing stuff with the land. People just don't like what they are doing with it.
I know...
I would think that the State would be a better steward over the land than the Feds.
Just my honest opinion.
Why, exactly? From a practical standpoint natural resources are parts of complex systems that don't conveniently divide themselves along our political borders. Particularly from a conservation standpoint there is much that simply can't meaningfully fall within a single state's jurisdiction. In addition land that goes from federal to state control might suddenly leave those living one side of the border or another dealing with the consequences of decisions made in another state, where previously they didn't have to deal with that.
Last and certainly not least, for the average citizen the state and federal government are both so far removed from being something they can exert direct influence over that the difference between the two basically rounds down the same. However state legislatures are far more easily pocketed by the powerful. State governments are more susceptible to manipulation by interest groups and face less scrutiny.
von Hohenstein wrote: If these guys were black, they would have been shoot by the police days ago. If these quys were muslims, they would have been shot by the military days ago.
But they are white, so they are allowed to do their thing. At least this is how it looks like from the other side of the ocean. Why are these guys still not arrested?
Why would we care how it looks on the other side of the ocean?
Because this board has users from many countries, and they are all allowed to participate in discussion without their viewpoint being derided like that
A viewpoint based on no fact/evidence probably is worth derision. And his viewpoint is based on nothing but emotion.
It's not based on no facts.
"At 6221 Osage Ave., Philadelphia, PA, on May 13, 1985, members of MOVE, a predominantly black organization dedicated to nature, and African tradition, were confronted by the Philadelphia Police Dept., after neighbors complained of MOVE’s constant bullhorn announcements of anti-American sentiment at all hours. In an attempt to clear the building, the police fired tear gas, and the fire dept. hosed the roof with water cannons. A burst of gunfire erupted from inside the building, and the police responded with thousands of rounds of small arms fire for 90 minutes. They then tried to remove two roof structures by dropping a 4 pound bomb of C-4 and Tovex onto the roof. This started a fire that eventually consumed the entire neighborhood. Eleven members of MOVE died in the fire. Only two survived."
It is not based on fact, Waco and Ruby Ridge were all white folks and many more were killed, and they are more recent as well. So there is no fact presented that whites get treated differently and even less that Muslims would have the military used against them. Add in, your example is an example of city cops from a single city vice the Feds. Again, his position is based on emotion, not facts.
d-usa wrote: The Feds are doing stuff with the land. People just don't like what they are doing with it.
I know...
I would think that the State would be a better steward over the land than the Feds.
Just my honest opinion.
Why, exactly? From a practical standpoint natural resources are parts of complex systems that don't conveniently divide themselves along our political borders. Particularly from a conservation standpoint there is much that simply can't meaningfully fall within a single state's jurisdiction. In addition land that goes from federal to state control might suddenly leave those living one side of the border or another dealing with the consequences of decisions made in another state, where previously they didn't have to deal with that.
Last and certainly not least, for the average citizen the state and federal government are both so far removed from being something they can exert direct influence over that the difference between the two basically rounds down the same. However state legislatures are far more easily pocketed by the powerful. State governments are more susceptible to manipulation by interest groups and face less scrutiny.
Because why not?
FWIW, I'm not talking about the Federal parks or protected areas. There's a need for that and I have no qualms for that being under Federal jurisdiction.
Is there any justification, other than the fed is the current owner of the title, for the feds owning that much land in the west?
Because most of those states have like 3 people living in them, and it has been expanded on earlier the feds have owned that land for a long time because no one wanted it.
Ustrello wrote: Because most of those states have like 3 people living in them, and it has been expanded on earlier the feds have owned that land for a long time because no one wanted it.
I know the history, I'm just arguing that NOW the state may be better stewards over these lands.
However, I wouldn't be surprised if the state legislature wouldn'twant it as they'd have to pay for the maintenance.
Ustrello wrote: Because most of those states have like 3 people living in them, and it has been expanded on earlier the feds have owned that land for a long time because no one wanted it.
I know the history, I'm just arguing that NOW the state may be better stewards over these lands.
However, I wouldn't be surprised if the state legislature wouldn'twant it as they'd have to pay for the maintenance.
I wouldn't trust most states especially the great plains ones who would sell out to mining companies and frakkers in a heart beat.
Because it would cost the Fed hundreds of millions if not billions to just give it away, and the State probably can't afford to buy the land let alone maintain or manage any of it.
I'd also posit that if the best response to "Why?" is "Why not?" then there basically is no reason to change the status quo. Especially when there are reasons "why not?"
Is there any justification, other than the fed is the current owner of the title, for the feds owning that much land in the west?
They got it, therefore it is theirs. The Federal Government does have property rights like everyone else.
d-usa wrote: The Feds are doing stuff with the land. People just don't like what they are doing with it.
I know...
I would think that the State would be a better steward over the land than the Feds.
Just my honest opinion.
Why, exactly? From a practical standpoint natural resources are parts of complex systems that don't conveniently divide themselves along our political borders. Particularly from a conservation standpoint there is much that simply can't meaningfully fall within a single state's jurisdiction. In addition land that goes from federal to state control might suddenly leave those living one side of the border or another dealing with the consequences of decisions made in another state, where previously they didn't have to deal with that.
Last and certainly not least, for the average citizen the state and federal government are both so far removed from being something they can exert direct influence over that the difference between the two basically rounds down the same. However state legislatures are far more easily pocketed by the powerful. State governments are more susceptible to manipulation by interest groups and face less scrutiny.
Because why not?
FWIW, I'm not talking about the Federal parks or protected areas. There's a need for that and I have no qualms for that being under Federal jurisdiction.
Is there any justification, other than the fed is the current owner of the title, for the feds owning that much land in the west?
Again:
Last and certainly not least, for the average citizen the state and federal government are both so far removed from being something they can exert direct influence over that the difference between the two basically rounds down the same. However state legislatures are far more easily pocketed by the powerful. State governments are more susceptible to manipulation by interest groups and face less scrutiny.
In other words for any square mile of land X, I can be reasonably sure that the federal government is less likely than a state government to sell, lease, license or otherwise hand it off to private entity exerting dubious monetary influence, a crony, or any number of other parties in fashion that may or may not actually count as corruption.
You specifically said you thought the state government would be a better steward, so you must actually have a reason for believing that right? "Why not" is not any sort of reason, you may as well tell me you flipped a coin "Tails Feds, Heads State. Oh I got state". I can certainly think of valid reasons state ownership could be considered better (though wouldn't personally call any of them stewardship), but I'm asking which ones you are thinking of specifically.
In the context of this thread... I believe the State would be better at managing public lands with respect to allowing ranchers use the land than some bureaucrat in D.C.
Considering that the two main grievances so far are "feth off, I'm not paying for no grazing rights" and "feth off, I'll hunt and burn whatever I want" I don't think the state is going to do much better there.
d-usa wrote: Considering that the two main grievances so far are "feth off, I'm not paying for no grazing rights" and "feth off, I'll hunt and burn whatever I want" I don't think the state is going to do much better there.
With the Bundys? Yeah... you're right about that.
But don't discount the plights that the ranchers have with BLM/Feds in general.
whembly wrote: In the context of this thread... I believe the State would be better at managing public lands with respect to allowing ranchers use the land than some bureaucrat in D.C.
You're aware that Bureau of Land Management have offices and officials elsewhere in the country, not just in D.C. right?
whembly wrote: In the context of this thread... I believe the State would be better at managing public lands with respect to allowing ranchers use the land than some bureaucrat in D.C.
You're aware that Bureau of Land Management have offices and officials elsewhere in the country, not just in D.C. right?
whembly wrote: In the context of this thread... I believe the State would be better at managing public lands with respect to allowing ranchers use the land than some bureaucrat in D.C.
It's not some paper pusher in DC. The BLM has local commissions and officers to directly manage grazing on public lands.
whembly wrote: In the context of this thread... I believe the State would be better at managing public lands with respect to allowing ranchers use the land than some bureaucrat in D.C.
It's not some paper pusher in DC. The BLM has local commissions and officers to directly manage grazing on public lands.
I suppose the 'and' would be is there any criticism of BLM policy here other than "federal government bad."
Not really.
I'm just arguing, in the context of some of these Rancher's plight, that all those public lands may be better off under their States' management, rather than Federal.
whembly wrote: in the context of some of these Rancher's plight
That's kind of the problem. What plight? That to use public lands they have to follow laws and pay fees? The State would have laws and fees too. It's not like we're just going to go back to the good old Open Range, and why would we want to? Surely we haven't forgotten the Dust Bowl already (add that to the list of reasons why Federal management trumps State management btw).
that all those public lands may be better off under their States' management, rather than Federal.
By what logic? What reasons? Are there any or is this just "government bad?" Saying the state would be better at it is a somewhat empty statement. Why would they be better?
whembly wrote: I'm just arguing, in the context of some of these Rancher's plight, that all those public lands may be better off under their States' management, rather than Federal.
What plight, specifically? Federal grazing fees are a fraction of what it costs on private land. It's set to the minimum required by law and has been since 2007, $1.35/AUM. The free market would charge an average of $20.10/AUM for grazing on private land. This is why the BLM runs a loss, year after year, $120 million plus a year since 2002.
Cliven Bundy doesn't even want to pay that. He wants to pay nothing, and he is paying nothing. We're paying for it. My tax dollars are going into Cliven Bundy's pocket because he won't pay his land fees, so please, tell me more about how he's the victim. He then inspired Lavoy Finicum to stop paying his land use fees, as well, because why not? The federal government showed they won't do anything about it.
This really feels like a fact-free, knee jerk "well, if it's the federal government, it must be bad" based opinion.
whembly wrote: I'm just arguing, in the context of some of these Rancher's plight, that all those public lands may be better off under their States' management, rather than Federal.
What plight, specifically? Federal grazing fees are a fraction of what it costs on private land. It's set to the minimum required by law and has been since 2007, $1.35/AUM. The free market would charge an average of $20.10/AUM for grazing on private land. This is why the BLM runs a loss, year after year, $120 million plus a year since 2002.
Cliven Bundy doesn't even want to pay that. He wants to pay nothing, and he is paying nothing. We're paying for it. My tax dollars are going into Cliven Bundy's pocket because he won't pay his land fees, so please, tell me more about how he's the victim. He then inspired Lavoy Finicum to stop paying his land use fees, as well, because why not? The federal government showed they won't do anything about it.
This really feels like a fact-free, knee jerk "well, if it's the federal government, it must be bad" based opinion.
Constant over-arching regulation changes.
Just google fu ranchers taking on BLM (not Hammonds/Bundy) and you'll see numerous account along those same vein.
Granted... nothing may change, but there are real issues that Ranchers in general has with BLM.
Hence why I posited that maybe... just maybe, those massive federal lands out West to revert back to the states and let those states determine how to manage it. Let places like CA and CO be in the forefront of environmentalism and save the rabbit mouse, while MT and NV can open up the lands to any rancher.
But, hey... I'm jumping around with my hair--on-fire, knee-jerking my way here I suppose...
Then the immediate solution would seem to be to stop having regulatory changes, which is a much less extreme solution.
Granted, as someone who has listened to 'legitimate' complaints about Federal regulations in another area, what exactly are these over-arching changes? Major legislation has not been passed in this area since 1976 (Federal Land Policy and Management Act).
EDIT: And I'll be honest. I did try to look up what there might be about this, but I actually don't find much direct criticism of the BLM. Complaining that they have to maintain their own fences means little to me. Build a fence, so what? The most substantive complaint I can find against the BLM policy directly is actually that their AUM charge is too low and hurts the free market. The complaint that actually catches my attention isn't actually against the BLM. It's against Ranchers who sublet their Grazing leases for massive profit margins to other ranchers (which is illegal). How bout we get on that, cause that's kind of a dick move.
Can you show any examples in the US where the groups you mention took over a building in the woods and were then killed by cops/military? Hell, can you find any examples of Muslims in the US being killed by the military as you claim would be the case? Even the gak bag Nidal Hassan was killed by civilian DoD cops.
.
I just wanted to point out this error. He's still alive, last I heard.
And there is totally a different justice system for "Black Americans" and "White Americans", that difference being green.
And if we really want to go historical on Federal Govt involvement in crackdown of fringe groups, the experience of the Black Panthers and the KKK should be pretty self illuminatory. I don't think that's a word but I like it.
Can you show any examples in the US where the groups you mention took over a building in the woods and were then killed by cops/military? Hell, can you find any examples of Muslims in the US being killed by the military as you claim would be the case? Even the gak bag Nidal Hassan was killed by civilian DoD cops.
.
I just wanted to point out this error. He's still alive, last I heard.
You are absolutely correct, I meant shot... Obviously he lived and I had a massive brain fart.
whembly wrote: BLM built the fence to prevent the ranchers from having water access from their stocks on the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.
And? It's a Wildlife Refuge. What did they expect? It's not like this thing suddenly came into existence overnight. It's been there since 1908, it was an allowance that they got to water herds there at all.
Further, what fence? The BLM and Ranchers negotiated to be put up in 2013 to keep herds from watering in parts of the refuge agreed to be off limits to herds? This agreement was made in 2013, and Ranchers had a say in it (among other interested parties) before the BLM put it in action. Hell, in searching the background on this fence I've actually found that Hammond set another fire in 1999 (so that's three now), discharged a rifle at hunters who were legally on the refuge with valid permits, and that Hammond tried to claim a water source near his property was his when it actually wasn't and the BLM put up a fence because he wasn't allowed to use that water source for his herds and that was in 1994. Hammond seems to suffer from Cliven Bundy Syndrome, which includes symptoms such as claiming that land that isn't his is his, throwing raging hissy fits that laws exist and he isn't exempt to them, and being a pain in the local community's butt but for some reason is a hero for causing nothing but trouble.
Can you show any examples in the US where the groups you mention took over a building in the woods and were then killed by cops/military? Hell, can you find any examples of Muslims in the US being killed by the military as you claim would be the case? Even the gak bag Nidal Hassan was killed by civilian DoD cops.
.
I just wanted to point out this error. He's still alive, last I heard.
You are absolutely correct, I meant shot... Obviously he lived and I had a massive brain fart.
No you were just wishing the same as the rest of America that he wasn't sitting in Leavenworth collecting a Captain's salary still, the disgusting feth that he is.
whembly wrote: In the context of this thread... I believe the State would be better at managing public lands with respect to allowing ranchers use the land than some bureaucrat in D.C.
Except that is not what happens, and has been proven to be a bad idea the last time the feds handed land over to the locals to regulate.
Land developers incite bigots and anti-fed groups to form militias.
Land gets handed over to local politicians.
Local politicians either grant developers access or outright sell it to them to 'enrich' the local community.
For a short while, everyone seemingly gets rich, Land developers make billions off of formally public land.
Shortly after the land is gone, the little white people militias either get bought out, disenfranchised or both and the public land is destroyed and lost forever.
Go read about how well all of that 'hand over to the states' went in Illinois and other states on the border of that 'look at all that land!' map. The politicians sold it all to crooks who got stinking rich off it and none of the poor little militiamen got squat. They are nothing but ignorant pawns in a billionaire's game.
Add stalking, harassment, and intimidation charges to the list.
So they pretty much get to do whatever they want, whenever they want, to whoever they want without repercussions. When are they going to do something about these guys, when the start collecting "Taxes" from the locals?
Add stalking, harassment, and intimidation charges to the list.
So they pretty much get to do whatever they want, whenever they want, to whoever they want without repercussions. When are they going to do something about these guys, when the start collecting "Taxes" from the locals?
That is the way it works when you threaten people at gunpoint and promise violent responses to anyone who attempts to stop you in the name of self defense. They probably have the entire community thinking if you cross them a sniper will shoot you dead before you can blink.
Add stalking, harassment, and intimidation charges to the list.
So they pretty much get to do whatever they want, whenever they want, to whoever they want without repercussions. When are they going to do something about these guys, when the start collecting "Taxes" from the locals?
That is the way it works when you threaten people at gunpoint and promise violent responses to anyone who attempts to stop you in the name of self defense. They probably have the entire community thinking if you cross them a sniper will shoot you dead before you can blink.
Isn't this dealing with this kind of situation the exact job description of the national guard? I'm hardly the guy with the world's most hawkish view of law enforcement but this situation just seems to be going beyond the pale. There are bands of armed peopled denying US Sovereignty while both patrolling US Soil and threatening US citizens as part of doing so.
Is it me, or are the Ranchers acting more entitled to free stuff than the welfare queens they decry taking their money?
We should have just droned the place........actually, why are we not doing that?
hotsauceman1 wrote: Is it me, or are the Ranchers acting more entitled to free stuff than the welfare queens they decry taking their money?
We should have just droned the place........actually, why are we not doing that?
A tiny thing called 'due process'.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: If only there were a single member of the New Black Panther Party there holding a stick!
hotsauceman1 wrote: Is it me, or are the Ranchers acting more entitled to free stuff than the welfare queens they decry taking their money?
We should have just droned the place........actually, why are we not doing that?
hotsauceman1 wrote: Is it me, or are the Ranchers acting more entitled to free stuff than the welfare queens they decry taking their money? We should have just droned the place........actually, why are we not doing that?
A tiny thing called 'due process'.
That hasnt stopped people before.
You'll have to show me where we have been killing US citizens on US soil via drone attacks. I missed the news coverage.
Like it or not, these guys are not engaged in a gun battle. Going in to kill them at this point via any mechanism, drone or not, is bull gak.
So, tell me, why is it fine to kill terrorists on foreign soil with drone strikes, but not on domestic? These boys are terrorists plain and simple and should be treated like all terrorists.
hotsauceman1 wrote: So, tell me, why is it fine to kill terrorists on foreign soil with drone strikes, but not on domestic? These boys are terrorists plain and simple and should be treated like all terrorists.
You've got it backwards. Murdering people overseas is bad, so you should stop doing it, not just start murdering everyone.
These guys do not deserve to be murdered, and all murdering them would do is make the world that much worse.
Ouze wrote: If only there were a single member of the New Black Panther Party there holding a stick!
Yep, cause that guy got executed by drone.
I didn't say he was.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
hotsauceman1 wrote: So, tell me, why is it fine to kill terrorists on foreign soil with drone strikes, but not on domestic? These boys are terrorists plain and simple and should be treated like all terrorists.
Because they haven't been charged with a crime, let alone convicted of anything. This can't be a serious question.
nkelsch wrote: Someone should charge them all with a crime then and demand their surrender. Plenty of crimes have been committed to charge them with.
No argument whatsoever from me. My reluctance for the government to give them the bloodbath they are hoping for doesn't extend to them eluding justice. It was a mistake at the Bundy ranch and it would be a huge mistake here. They have engaged in a seditious conspiracy and should go to federal prison for a long time.
Add stalking, harassment, and intimidation charges to the list.
j
They need to haul these bastards away for a damn long time when this is over. My personal experiences with militia gives me no respect for these morons.
nkelsch wrote: Someone should charge them all with a crime then and demand their surrender. Plenty of crimes have been committed to charge them with.
No argument whatsoever from me. My reluctance for the government to give them the bloodbath they are hoping for doesn't extend to them eluding justice. It was a mistake at the Bundy ranch and it would be a huge mistake here. They have engaged in a seditious conspiracy and should go to federal prison for a long time.
So..... you can elude police by simply going onto your property and claiming you will shoot anyone who comes onto your property and nothing will happen to you? Wow.
Because they haven't been charged with a crime, let alone convicted of anything. This can't be a serious question.
I think his point was that how is it OK do do it when a US citizen is in another country, without being charged with an actual crime, and killed by drone strike, but not OK to do it domestically.
Because they haven't been charged with a crime, let alone convicted of anything. This can't be a serious question.
I think his point was that how is it OK do do it when a US citizen is in another country, without being charged with an actual crime, and killed by drone strike, but not OK to do it domestically.
Baron/hotsaucie, Ouze has been in vehement opposition to Obama's droning policy with extrajudicial killing of Americans abroad. He's being consistent there...
I haven't watched their videos because I've heard all that melodramatic gak about how "they fight so their children won't have to" before from militia members I knew.
I can see now why the militia here was coming up with plans to take people's food storage and other supplies in case an emergency happened, if this particular group can't think far enough ahead to stock up going into a siege.
It would seem to defeat the purpose of the 'starve them out' strategy if they can come and go as they please and people can send them supplies (though the dildos are hilarious ).
LordofHats wrote: It would seem to defeat the purpose of the 'starve them out' strategy if they can come and go as they please and people can send them supplies (though the dildos are hilarious ).
Until you get a unabomber type who sends them a special type of supply
LordofHats wrote: It would seem to defeat the purpose of the 'starve them out' strategy if they can come and go as they please and people can send them supplies (though the dildos are hilarious ).
Until you get a unabomber type who sends them a special type of supply
Oh yeah. That's what we need. Extremists with guns getting blown up by extremists with mail bombs XD Thanks for reminding me it can always get worse
LordofHats wrote: It would seem to defeat the purpose of the 'starve them out' strategy if they can come and go as they please and people can send them supplies (though the dildos are hilarious ).
To be serious, I can't understand that and allowing these clowns to harrass family of law enforcement officers. Though I hesitated at first, I am now coming down more firmly on the side of definition of terrorist for these guys.
My fear is that someone gets shot and takes this into a whole new level.
I think I might go talk to the people I know who used to be militia and see what their thoughts are.
LordofHats wrote: It would seem to defeat the purpose of the 'starve them out' strategy if they can come and go as they please and people can send them supplies (though the dildos are hilarious ).
At points I've half-seriously pondered the idea of sending them a case of Surströmming while just hoping they haven't been keeping up to date with their Internet gross-out videos.
LordofHats wrote: It would seem to defeat the purpose of the 'starve them out' strategy if they can come and go as they please and people can send them supplies (though the dildos are hilarious ).
At points I've half-seriously pondered the idea of sending them a case of Surströmming while just hoping they haven't been keeping up to date with their Internet gross-out videos.
That stuff needs to be banned under the Geneva convention, hell I would prefer Lutefisk over that
Just got done speaking with one of my friends that used to be militia. He thinks there is a legitimate grievance, but the guys with guns are idiots.
He says he hopes the siege ends with neither bloodshed or arrests, because both will fan the flames for other idiots.
Without arrests it will just embolden the next group of idiots though, so there really isn't any "good" outcome for the law enforcement folks. Do nothing, embolden them. Do anything, enrage them.
Does anybody know if any of the ranchers there are using the access to federal land they got when these guys tore the fence down, or are they staying away from that mess?
LordofHats wrote: It would seem to defeat the purpose of the 'starve them out' strategy if they can come and go as they please and people can send them supplies (though the dildos are hilarious ).
At points I've half-seriously pondered the idea of sending them a case of Surströmming while just hoping they haven't been keeping up to date with their Internet gross-out videos.
Pfft. They wanted snacks, so send some Haribo sugar-free gummy bears.
LordofHats wrote: It would seem to defeat the purpose of the 'starve them out' strategy if they can come and go as they please and people can send them supplies (though the dildos are hilarious ).
At points I've half-seriously pondered the idea of sending them a case of Surströmming while just hoping they haven't been keeping up to date with their Internet gross-out videos.
Pfft. They wanted snacks, so send some Haribo sugar-free gummy bears.
These may better fit into the current theme of sent support:
edit: those other ones I've seen; they're pretty good too. That being said I suspect they're going to be on the lookout for all products phallic, so I think the Haribo might hit them below the belt, metaphorically speaking.
LordofHats wrote: It would seem to defeat the purpose of the 'starve them out' strategy if they can come and go as they please and people can send them supplies (though the dildos are hilarious ).
At points I've half-seriously pondered the idea of sending them a case of Surströmming while just hoping they haven't been keeping up to date with their Internet gross-out videos.
Just make sure whatever company or method you use to ship the stuff doesn't mind if the can explodes, seeing as the pressure inside is enough to have the cans banned from air transport IIRC.
After 11 days of occupying a federal wildlife refuge in Oregon, a group of U.S. militiamen have brought in some "Constitutional" back up to help hold local officials accountable.
According to the Oregonian, self-proclaimed U.S. Superior Court Judge Bruce Doucette (not a real judge) arrived in Harney County Tuesday and is readying militiamen for a big old trial.
Doucette, who is reportedly associated with the sovereign citizen movement, met with individuals at the wildlife refuge Tuesday and said he believed there was substantial evidence against local officials to take action.
As the Oregonian reported, however, Doucette's plan was to appoint a "grand jury" of 25 local residents who would "convene in private and make its decisions in private."
Whatever the locals decide, Doucette said he will write up and share with the public.
Doucette, 54, hails from Colorado where he works now as a computer technician, but Doucette has lent his services to embattled 'Constitutional' types before. In November, he offered to help a group of off-the-grid residents who had bought land online and were trying to set up off-the-grid homesteads in Colorado, but were facing backlash from the government.
After 11 days of occupying a federal wildlife refuge in Oregon, a group of U.S. militiamen have brought in some "Constitutional" back up to help hold local officials accountable.
According to the Oregonian, self-proclaimed U.S. Superior Court Judge Bruce Doucette (not a real judge) arrived in Harney County Tuesday and is readying militiamen for a big old trial.
Doucette, who is reportedly associated with the sovereign citizen movement, met with individuals at the wildlife refuge Tuesday and said he believed there was substantial evidence against local officials to take action.
As the Oregonian reported, however, Doucette's plan was to appoint a "grand jury" of 25 local residents who would "convene in private and make its decisions in private."
Whatever the locals decide, Doucette said he will write up and share with the public.
Doucette, 54, hails from Colorado where he works now as a computer technician, but Doucette has lent his services to embattled 'Constitutional' types before. In November, he offered to help a group of off-the-grid residents who had bought land online and were trying to set up off-the-grid homesteads in Colorado, but were facing backlash from the government.
That's bound to help !
These are guys against Sharia courts, if I'm not mistaken, because they aren't U.S. courts. Yet here we are...
If I remember correctly, such trials have happened before.
Doucette appears to have taken an oath of office to be a U.S. Superior Court judge -- which, again, isn't a real judgeship -- in May 2015 when he declared that he was a "warrior protector" with "jurisdiction in all matters of all states and estates, national and countries where oppression, tyranny, suffrage, peonage, barratry, piracy, slavery of any type, involuntary servitude, antitrust, monopolizing, terrorism, exploitation, blackmail, extortion" or more occurred.
Doucette has interceded in matters between patriot groups and the government before. A Denver Post article from November chronicled how Doucette was called upon to assist a group of individuals who had moved to Costilla County, Colorado with the intention of setting up off-the-grid settlements, but had run into permitting fights with local officials. According to that piece, Doucette was called in via telephone at a meeting where he told the Denver Post that that while he did not have a formal law education, "I'm a very honest man with a lot of integrity, also very educated. I wouldn't credit any institution for the knowledge I have."
Doucette has also spent time working to free Steve Curry who is currently serving a jail sentence and is best known for allegedly selling illegitimate meteorites he claimed were tax deductible online. In a document posted to his Facebook page, Doucette sent a notice to Montrose County (Colorado) Sheriff Rick Dunlap informing him Curry needed to be released or the sheriff would face arrest. In a 12-page document, Doucette made his case and included a significant history of the sovereign citizens movement with a caveat for the sheriff.
"If you feel stupid or overwhelmed at the end, that's normal and we all go through that process of waking up. Realize you were intentionally defrauded," he said in the letter.
Doucette's Facebook page is littered with various arrest warrants for county officials from sheriffs to local judges as well as memes explaining how the "word legal means undoing God's Law," a video showing how you can run a car on water, and an article on how to keep bees indoors. His Facebook also includes a letter to Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper asking why he and the attorney general did not have an "oath of office" on file.
On his Facebook page, he also links to an article about ranchers Dwight and Steven Hammond, whose imprisonment for arson on federal lands was the inspiration for the standoff at Malheur. According to the article, their ranch -- which adjoins the Malheur refuge -- is sitting on "Natural Gas And Uranium that China Wants."
Doucette is also a bit of a science denier and conspiracy theorist. He has posted about how he doubts that the world is really round. He flat out said on Facebook that "we do not live on a Globe."
On November 16, Doucette posted a link on his Facebook titled “Boston Marathon Bombing ‘Victim’ Admits Hoax.” He then comments on the link and says 'Yes but this is our pretend government ... So sad that some people don’t see the Truth."
On his Facebook page, he also links to an article about ranchers Dwight and Steven Hammond, whose imprisonment for arson on federal lands was the inspiration for the standoff at Malheur. According to the article, their ranch -- which adjoins the Malheur refuge -- is sitting on "Natural Gas And Uranium that China Wants."
I hear a lot of strange accusations about my country's intentions, but this one struck me as the prize of the week. Why would anyone think that China is interested in mining Natural Gas and Uranium on some random person's ranch?
What are these people's complaints? All I can find are rants about how your government is somehow oppressing its citizens in some abstract sense. Do they have any concrete complaints and policies that they want to see change?
the Signless wrote: Why would anyone think that China is interested in mining Natural Gas and Uranium on some random person's ranch?
Even weirder, if he did have natural gas and uranium China wanted, wouldn't that make him filthy stinking rich? How is someone making you filthy stinking rich for sitting on some valuable dirt a conspiracy XD
What are these people's complaints?
Laws exist and don't let them do whatever they want.
Even weirder, if he did have natural gas and uranium China wanted, wouldn't that make him filthy stinking rich? How is someone making you filthy stinking rich for sitting on some valuable dirt a conspiracy XD
Usually the resources are on the PUBLIC LAND the ranchers are illegally using or using via subsidy and they want that land given to them so they can become rich.
This is why they want the feds to give control to state and local politicians who will then sell or transfer rights to local people who then sell it to developers who can sell it to China.
County Supremacists all just want the Feds to hand over land so they can exploit it and get rich because they are standing near it. There are good reasons the Feds hold on to land for the best interest of the nation as a whole and not a bunch of local people to do backroom deals with it.
An armed group has forcibly claimed a government facility, threatened and harassed law enforcement, and is actively conspiring against the government for political reasons. I'd say it's an adiquite description.
An armed group has forcibly claimed a government facility, threatened and harassed law enforcement, and is actively conspiring against the government for political reasons. I'd say it's an adiquite description.
They had keys for an empty wildlife facility, there were no threats or harassment to law enforcement, and it was a move to protest the BLM and the ridiculous sentences the Hammonds received. On top of that, regional support is split on the issue but cowards will be cowards. They seem to have forgotten the track record of the BLM.
I know this guy who is big time into government conspiracy. Ask me all the time about FEMA camps that he heard about the Army building to put Americans in. Well today he showed me a article about undercover FBI agents acting as militants in that Oregon town raising hell to incite violence. According to the article the county fire chief quit after catching undercover agents sneaking around the towns armory.
Chute82 wrote: I know this guy who is big time into government conspiracy. Ask me all the time about FEMA camps that he heard about the Army building to put Americans in. Well today he showed me a article about undercover FBI agents acting as militants in that Oregon town raising hell to incite violence. According to the article the county fire chief quit after catching undercover agents sneaking around the towns armory.
An armed group has forcibly claimed a government facility, threatened and harassed law enforcement, and is actively conspiring against the government for political reasons. I'd say it's an adiquite description.
They had keys for an empty wildlife facility, there were no threats or harassment to law enforcement, and it was a move to protest the BLM and the ridiculous sentences the Hammonds received. On top of that, regional support is split on the issue but cowards will be cowards. They seem to have forgotten the track record of the BLM.
Let's see, they have stated they will use force (i.e., the guns they have) if officials attempt to remove them. What has the BLM done? And what is ridiculous about the sentence, it's the mandatory minimum for arson.
An armed group has forcibly claimed a government facility, threatened and harassed law enforcement, and is actively conspiring against the government for political reasons. I'd say it's an adiquite description.
They don't fit the technical definition of terrorism IMO.
They have definitely broken the law, but lets put this in perspective. They're occupying an empty cabin out in the middle of nowhere. Its not like they've taken over a military base or anything, you know something thats actually important.
Really the best way to deal with them is ignore them. Let them sit out in the middle of nowhere till they get bored and go home.
I'll admit it's possible that independent outsiders could have caused some trouble but it's not what the Bundy group is about. Though no federal property was destroyed, and it's not a threat to say you will defend yourself if forcibly removed.
So it's a combination of maybes and outright lies poised as character assassination.
The Airman wrote: I'll admit it's possible that independent outsiders could have caused some trouble but it's not what the Bundy group is about. Though no federal property was destroyed, and it's not a threat to say you will defend yourself if forcibly removed.
So it's a combination of maybes and outright lies poised as character assassination.
So it is okay for a robber to use deadly force when being forcibly removed from property where they are not wanted then? because that is basically what you are saying. Also federal property was destroyed, once again linked in response to your claims.
The Airman wrote: I'll admit it's possible that independent outsiders could have caused some trouble but it's not what the Bundy group is about. Though no federal property was destroyed, and it's not a threat to say you will defend yourself if forcibly removed.
So it's a combination of maybes and outright lies poised as character assassination.
So it is okay for a robber to use deadly force when being forcibly removed from property where they are not wanted then? because that is basically what you are saying. Also federal property was destroyed, once again linked in response to your claims.
Of course not. What he is saying is that saying you'll defend yourself if attacked isn't really a threat, regardless of them occupying the location illegally.
The Airman wrote: I'll admit it's possible that independent outsiders could have caused some trouble but it's not what the Bundy group is about. Though no federal property was destroyed, and it's not a threat to say you will defend yourself if forcibly removed.
So it's a combination of maybes and outright lies poised as character assassination.
So it is okay for a robber to use deadly force when being forcibly removed from property where they are not wanted then? because that is basically what you are saying. Also federal property was destroyed, once again linked in response to your claims.
Of course not. What he is saying is that saying you'll defend yourself if attacked isn't really a threat, regardless of them occupying the location illegally.
I'm going to beat your face in if you come near me. That doesn't sound like a threat then?
threat
THret/Submit
noun
1.
a statement of an intention to inflict pain, injury, damage, or other hostile action on someone in retribution for something done or not done.
Not really work it to talk to anyone who thinks that the Bundy's didn't do anything wrong and starts talking about outside agitators and whatnot (not taking about Grey here).
You'd have better luck getting a Bundy to pay their bill that you'll have making them realize what the Bundy's are about.
You know when I owe the government money and refuse to pay, they just garnish my wages. Think if I go to the nearest IRS office with a gun and say I'll defend myself if anyone tries to make me leave I can get all my money back
Yknow what I want too see, Bundy want his land returned to the original owners, him. So I want the government to agree, than give it the the Native Tribes.
LordofHats wrote: You know when I owe the government money and refuse to pay, they just garnish my wages. Think if I go to the nearest IRS office with a gun and say I'll defend myself if anyone tries to make me leave I can get all my money back
At this rate? Probably. You'll at least have a lot of vocal defenders and people calling for you to just be able to go home afterwards.
LordofHats wrote: You know when I owe the government money and refuse to pay, they just garnish my wages. Think if I go to the nearest IRS office with a gun and say I'll defend myself if anyone tries to make me leave I can get all my money back
Isn't there a picture of the guy standing outside his house holding the U.S. flag in one hand and a shotgun in the other? For some reason that image flashed in my mind when I read this.
LordofHats wrote: You know when I owe the government money and refuse to pay, they just garnish my wages. Think if I go to the nearest IRS office with a gun and say I'll defend myself if anyone tries to make me leave I can get all my money back
Isn't there a picture of the guy standing outside his house holding the U.S. flag in one hand and a shotgun in the other? For some reason that image flashed in my mind when I read this.
It's probably my favorite 'Murica' meme picture
I might need to put on some weight... And get a giant US Flag... and a shotgun...
LordofHats wrote: You know when I owe the government money and refuse to pay, they just garnish my wages. Think if I go to the nearest IRS office with a gun and say I'll defend myself if anyone tries to make me leave I can get all my money back
Isn't there a picture of the guy standing outside his house holding the U.S. flag in one hand and a shotgun in the other? For some reason that image flashed in my mind when I read this.
It's probably my favorite 'Murica' meme picture
I might need to put on some weight... And get a giant US Flag... and a shotgun...
LordofHats wrote: You know when I owe the government money and refuse to pay, they just garnish my wages. Think if I go to the nearest IRS office with a gun and say I'll defend myself if anyone tries to make me leave I can get all my money back
Isn't there a picture of the guy standing outside his house holding the U.S. flag in one hand and a shotgun in the other? For some reason that image flashed in my mind when I read this.
It's probably my favorite 'Murica' meme picture
I might need to put on some weight... And get a giant US Flag... and a shotgun...
A prize should go to whoever turns that meme into a 40K standard bearer.
An armed group has forcibly claimed a government facility, threatened and harassed law enforcement, and is actively conspiring against the government for political reasons. I'd say it's an adiquite description.
They had keys for an empty wildlife facility, there were no threats or harassment to law enforcement, and it was a move to protest the BLM and the ridiculous sentences the Hammonds received. On top of that, regional support is split on the issue but cowards will be cowards. They seem to have forgotten the track record of the BLM.
Let's see, they have stated they will use force (i.e., the guns they have) if officials attempt to remove them.
What has the BLM done?
And what is ridiculous about the sentence, it's the mandatory minimum for arson.
Again, stating you would defend yourself is not a threat. That is considered a warning, and if you were to use legal gymnastics, I'm sure you could accuse them of making 'conditional threats'. Beyond that, it's a warning in self defense. As for the BLM, here's a short collection of things they have done but Stefan Molyneux goes into better details in his videos. And yes, the ranchers being sentenced for terrorist arson is ridiculous that the judge himself said the five year minimum sentence was completely unfair for the damage that had been done.
As for the harassment, I have no doubt some partisan things were said or law enforcement was followed, but I'd need more information to pin it on the Bundy group. Keep in mind you have different people coming in from different groups with different ideas. In short, I find it disingenuous.
As for d-usa: You can call it a waste of time to argue with me all you like, but I have never said the Bundy's have not done anything wrong. Let me be clear on this: the die was cast when the Bundy's and friends decided to hole up on an empty wildlife refuge in the middle of nowhere and now the ball is in play. I'm at ideological odds with most of what they're about in regards to religion and social issues, but I do have parallels in that I do see the overstepping of the Federal government (and it is plain as day in the Hammond case). While I believe the occupation was incredibly stupid because 1) they're outsiders, and 2) people will oppose them just because of what they're associated with. But I feel that I have to throw in my lot in support of this group because they've actually made a statement and the fact that I feel this is a crucial event in terms of how Americans view militias. Because of the above factors, you have these men being labelled 'domestic terrorists' for standing up to the Feds. Something something united we stand, divided we fall.
I support the Bundy's case more than that of the BLM's. They're most certainly not innocent in this case, but the BLM is not either. I'd like to see the Hammonds' sentences overturned and their fines scrapped as well as a BLM that operates less like a mafia. You're free to disagree but that's my stance on this subject. I just ask that you don't put words into my mouth in order to discredit or insult me for daring to not agree with you.
I've had my association with a militia and my experience was that most of the members were incompetent or otherwise socially deficient wannabes or other lame types who couldn't hack it in the real military sprinkled very lightly with some genuine people who were in the military and actually did something. I am glad to see you think their actions are stupid and as evidenced in a previous thread about Cliven, you will see I am not normally a fan of the BLM. In this case though, I think there has been commendable restraint on the part of the Feds and that the militia types in that town are making themselves look like fools and bullies.
That's some interesting stuff in there. This argumentation that someone is not a real citizen of the US because of some document wording, it seems to be a common trope amongst certain types of groups. I just found this interesting, maybe you do, too: In Germany, there are some wackos calling themselves "citizens of the Reich", claiming that there never was an official peace treaty between the German Reich and the Allied nations, claiming that the Federal Republic of Germany we have today is just a puppet for the Allies and no legitimate government at all. Therefore, these guys claim citizenship to the German Reich which, according to them, has never ceased to exist. Add a sprinkle of regular tinfoil paranoia (chemtrails and stuff) and a diffuse anti-americanism...
Sorry for the derailment, I just thought it interesting how fringe groups among different countries can have so similar ways of arguing their position.
That's some interesting stuff in there. This argumentation that someone is not a real citizen of the US because of some document wording, it seems to be a common trope amongst certain types of groups. I just found this interesting, maybe you do, too: In Germany, there are some wackos calling themselves "citizens of the Reich", claiming that there never was an official peace treaty between the German Reich and the Allied nations, claiming that the Federal Republic of Germany we have today is just a puppet for the Allies and no legitimate government at all. Therefore, these guys claim citizenship to the German Reich which, according to them, has never ceased to exist. Add a sprinkle of regular tinfoil paranoia (chemtrails and stuff) and a diffuse anti-americanism...
Sorry for the derailment, I just thought it interesting how fringe groups among different countries can have so similar ways of arguing their position.
It's always the same tactics with these groups who claim to champion freedom and founding ideals, no matter where they're from. The militias here are having so called , "secret trials" in abstentions for officials of the local and Federal government.
The constitution and laws of the USA are pretty clear about how you become a citizen.
IDK if you can renounce citizenship, but anyway while residing in the USA you are still bound by its laws and constitution, including the protections and rights afforded by them.
Bundy and his pals, however, don't like the way the laws work towards them, so they claim not to be subject to this illegitmate law while remaining loyal, law-abiding citizens to some imaginary law that surprisingly works in their interests.
An armed group has forcibly claimed a government facility, threatened and harassed law enforcement, and is actively conspiring against the government for political reasons. I'd say it's an adiquite description.
They had keys for an empty wildlife facility, there were no threats or harassment to law enforcement, and it was a move to protest the BLM and the ridiculous sentences the Hammonds received. On top of that, regional support is split on the issue but cowards will be cowards. They seem to have forgotten the track record of the BLM.
FreeThoughtProject... "Those of us at the Free Thought Project have dedicated our lives to shining light into the darkness of these corrupt entities as we believe sunlight to be the best disinfectant."
Read more at http://thefreethoughtproject.com/about-us/#dXbiHWJKp5THhotx.99
Thanks for the tinfoil hat post of the day. We're good to go, now.
An armed group has forcibly claimed a government facility, threatened and harassed law enforcement, and is actively conspiring against the government for political reasons. I'd say it's an adiquite description.
They had keys for an empty wildlife facility, there were no threats or harassment to law enforcement, and it was a move to protest the BLM and the ridiculous sentences the Hammonds received. On top of that, regional support is split on the issue but cowards will be cowards. They seem to have forgotten the track record of the BLM.
FreeThoughtProject... "Those of us at the Free Thought Project have dedicated our lives to shining light into the darkness of these corrupt entities as we believe sunlight to be the best disinfectant."
Read more at http://thefreethoughtproject.com/about-us/#dXbiHWJKp5THhotx.99
Thanks for the tinfoil hat post of the day. We're good to go, now.
An armed group has forcibly claimed a government facility, threatened and harassed law enforcement, and is actively conspiring against the government for political reasons. I'd say it's an adiquite description.
They had keys for an empty wildlife facility, there were no threats or harassment to law enforcement, and it was a move to protest the BLM and the ridiculous sentences the Hammonds received. On top of that, regional support is split on the issue but cowards will be cowards. They seem to have forgotten the track record of the BLM.
FreeThoughtProject... "Those of us at the Free Thought Project have dedicated our lives to shining light into the darkness of these corrupt entities as we believe sunlight to be the best disinfectant."
Read more at http://thefreethoughtproject.com/about-us/#dXbiHWJKp5THhotx.99
Thanks for the tinfoil hat post of the day. We're good to go, now.
What the freethough project and stefan molyneux aren't bias and terrible new sources? Nooo
An armed group has forcibly claimed a government facility, threatened and harassed law enforcement, and is actively conspiring against the government for political reasons. I'd say it's an adiquite description.
They had keys for an empty wildlife facility, there were no threats or harassment to law enforcement, and it was a move to protest the BLM and the ridiculous sentences the Hammonds received. On top of that, regional support is split on the issue but cowards will be cowards. They seem to have forgotten the track record of the BLM.
FreeThoughtProject... "Those of us at the Free Thought Project have dedicated our lives to shining light into the darkness of these corrupt entities as we believe sunlight to be the best disinfectant."
Read more at http://thefreethoughtproject.com/about-us/#dXbiHWJKp5THhotx.99
Thanks for the tinfoil hat post of the day. We're good to go, now.
What the freethough project and stefan molyneux aren't bias and terrible new sources? Nooo
They picked up on the story due to what the former fire chief claimed, and that video is linked above. But as I said, the guy claimed he was misquoted. I don't follow the Free Thought Project but the article was decent enough. This is more a case of "No, I didn't say what I said on camera!" than anything -- though the benefit of the doubt could be given that the fire chief misworded his statement.
As for Stefan Molyneux, he covered the Hammond involvement quite well. Poison the well some more, would ya?
An armed group has forcibly claimed a government facility, threatened and harassed law enforcement, and is actively conspiring against the government for political reasons. I'd say it's an adiquite description.
They had keys for an empty wildlife facility, there were no threats or harassment to law enforcement, and it was a move to protest the BLM and the ridiculous sentences the Hammonds received. On top of that, regional support is split on the issue but cowards will be cowards. They seem to have forgotten the track record of the BLM.
FreeThoughtProject... "Those of us at the Free Thought Project have dedicated our lives to shining light into the darkness of these corrupt entities as we believe sunlight to be the best disinfectant."
Read more at http://thefreethoughtproject.com/about-us/#dXbiHWJKp5THhotx.99
Thanks for the tinfoil hat post of the day. We're good to go, now.
What the freethough project and stefan molyneux aren't bias and terrible new sources? Nooo
They picked up on the story due to what the former fire chief claimed, and that video is linked above. But as I said, the guy claimed he was misquoted. I don't follow the Free Thought Project but the article was decent enough. This is more a case of "No, I didn't say what I said on camera!" than anything -- though the benefit of the doubt could be given that the fire chief misworded his statement.
As for Stefan Molyneux, he covered the Hammond involvement quite well. Poison the well some more, would ya?
Hey if that helps you feel better covering for terrorists sure go ahead
Honestly if they wanted to, they could do more damage than the San Beradino shooters or the Boston Bomber. But they haven't, and elected to take positions inside of a remote compound. You can accuse them of idiocy but not terrorism.
Breaking and entering, shutting down government work, destroying property, threatening violent response if an attempt at lawful removal is made, calling for an armed uprising against the government, stalking federal and local law enforcement, government employees, and their families...
They make a good case to be considered terrorists.
d-usa wrote: Breaking and entering, shutting down government work, destroying property, threatening violent response if an attempt at lawful removal is made, calling for an armed uprising against the government, stalking federal and local law enforcement, government employees, and their families...
They make a good case to be considered terrorists.
d-usa wrote: Breaking and entering, shutting down government work, destroying property, threatening violent response if an attempt at lawful removal is made, calling for an armed uprising against the government, stalking federal and local law enforcement, government employees, and their families...
They make a good case to be considered terrorists.
h
And when the gak hits the fan, these will be the types raiding people's homes to steal their supplies if the ones I knew are anything to go on.
The Airman wrote: I'll admit it's possible that independent outsiders could have caused some trouble but it's not what the Bundy group is about. Though no federal property was destroyed, and it's not a threat to say you will defend yourself if forcibly removed.
So it's a combination of maybes and outright lies poised as character assassination.
So it is okay for a robber to use deadly force when being forcibly removed from property where they are not wanted then? because that is basically what you are saying. Also federal property was destroyed, once again linked in response to your claims.
Of course not. What he is saying is that saying you'll defend yourself if attacked isn't really a threat, regardless of them occupying the location illegally.
I'm going to beat your face in if you come near me. That doesn't sound like a threat then?
threat
THret/Submit
noun
1.
a statement of an intention to inflict pain, injury, damage, or other hostile action on someone in retribution for something done or not done.
I think that if we say that asserting you will defend yourself is itself a threat than it could be a serious blow to people who are legitimately defending themselves. Which is obviously not a good thing. We have to consider the ramifications.
If we classify what they said as being a threat, than someone who is defending their home from an intruder who yells out "I'll kill you if you come any closer" could be construed as making a death threat if we follow the same logic. That's not a good precedent.
These morons have already done plenty of illegal stuff, no need to tack on something which could erode other people's rights.
