Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Wow, this is getting more outrageous than Reality TV. The ratings these guys could pull in if we just got a camera crew in there.....

 reds8n wrote:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/meet-bruce-doucette-buddy-s-sovereign-citizen-judge

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?

'murica indeed.

Indeed.

So...

Bundy is Bane
Weird judge is Scarecrow

When will we get our Batman?

 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.

'murica indeed.

Indeed.

Indubitibly.

 LordofHats wrote:


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.

Domestic terrorists? Really?

 The Airman wrote:
Domestic terrorists? Really?

I am sure the people of the town they have been bothering would be more than happy to call them domestic terrorists.

 The Airman wrote:
Domestic terrorists? Really?

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've been sent something to go with all the toys

http://boingboing.net/2016/01/14/oregons-domestic-terrorists.html

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
They've been sent something to go with all the toys

http://boingboing.net/2016/01/14/oregons-domestic-terrorists.html

That's a lot of personal lube

Can we all start a fund to send them a Male Blow Up Doll?

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 The Airman wrote:
Domestic terrorists? Really?

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.

Also: http://thefreethoughtproject.com/oregon-fire-marshall-resigns-exposing-undercover-fbi-agents-posing-militia/

Funny, that.

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.

This took longer than I thought it would...

 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.

You're funny.

Nice try at implying my position, however.

 The Airman wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 The Airman wrote:
Domestic terrorists? Really?

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.

Also: http://thefreethoughtproject.com/oregon-fire-marshall-resigns-exposing-undercover-fbi-agents-posing-militia/

Funny, that.

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.

And harassment.
http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2016/01/sheriff_managing_oregon_stando.html
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jan/07/oregon-residents-say-its-time-for-the-militia-to-pack-it-up-and-go

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 The Airman wrote:
Domestic terrorists? Really?

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.

They are also following law enforcement and employees home and stalking their families and they have destroyed federal property.

 d-usa wrote:
They are also following law enforcement and employees home and stalking their families and they have destroyed federal property.

Yeah. I could see people being reluctant at the start of this in applying the label, but I think we're kind of well past that now.

 d-usa wrote:
They are also following law enforcement and employees home and stalking their families and they have destroyed federal property.

I think I missed that bit. Definitely not cool.

 d-usa wrote:
They are also following law enforcement and employees home and stalking their families and they have destroyed federal property.

Source? Because my line of contact who is an allied third party on site tells a different story.

 The Airman wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
They are also following law enforcement and employees home and stalking their families and they have destroyed federal property.

Source? Because my line of contact who is an allied third party on site tells a different story.

You mean the sources that have been posted multiple times, including in direct response to you?

Personally I am shocked that an allied source wouldn't openly talk about their allies stalking families and tearing down fences.

 d-usa wrote:
Personally I am shocked that an allied source wouldn't openly talk about their allies stalking families and tearing down fences.

Hey they are militia so they aren't that smart to begin with

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.

 Ustrello wrote:

 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.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

 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