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

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Would there be an occupation without the Hammonds? Nobody else stretching the title here??? I would end this post with a word representing a male donkey but that might be insulting to them and get this second post deleted.


You are getting boring Dave*.

Now what about that occupation that's going on? The community of Burns is speaking out loud and clear that they want them gone. Bumbly and his bandits say they want to turn the land over to its owners. Funny thing, but they mean ranchers, loggers, miners -- basically recent immigrants. They say they want to turn the land over to "the people" but they never mention Native Americans who have a pretty good argument that the US never paid for the land it took from them. Bumbly's group claim nobody was using the land before the immigrant settlers moved in on the tribe's land therefore the immigrants had a right to take it. So, yeah, white racists with guns moving in on property that isn't theirs. It's an old story.

*edit: omit "getting"
 
Last edited:

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
In that article that I posted, the leader of Oathkeepers claims that a detachment from the Joint Special Operations Command has been dispatched. Only place I have read that though.

Wouldn't that violate the law?
Isn't armed occupation of federal buildings against the law?

From what I saw, a retired member of the FBI was saying that he would be shocked if the FBI wasn't monitoring the situation and preparing in case they are needed. Then he engaged in a lot of speculation about how they are training in the event they need to engage. http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-ff-ruby-ridge-waco-oregon-20160106-story.html

At this time, I'm hopeful that this thing blows over without blowing up. Its really up to the occupiers and depends on what they do.

Bundy can declare victory and head home if he wants to. He has succeeded in getting a spotlight on the rancher's trials and tribulations with the Fed. That Oregon congressman did a pretty good job at describing the situation too. Funny thing is that Rep. Walden is of the opinion that things are getting better because ranchers and US agencies are working more cooperatively than they had before. Still, there is a lot of BS going on on both sides.
 

bravedave

Well-Known Member
Oh yeah? You haven't made any comment about the occupation?





"Watching the news yesterday, a person could be forgiven for thinking that a small group of Americans had literally lost their minds. Militias are marching through Oregon on behalf of convicted arsonists? A small band of armed men has taken over a federal building? The story practically writes itself."

Doh.

Bye Felicia. You and your flaccidness.

Queue a slew of half wit remarks/pathetic insults. Kind of waiting to see what you'll come up with next, it is a little entertaining to see.
All the arm flailing while fabricating your retort here could exhaust a good size commercial grow.

Yes, I provided a link. Again, I have made no comment on the occupation. You could ask for one.
 

bravedave

Well-Known Member


You are getting boring Dave*.

Now what about that occupation that's going on? The community of Burns is speaking out loud and clear that they want them gone. Bumbly and his bandits say they want to turn the land over to its owners. Funny thing, but they mean ranchers, loggers, miners -- basically recent immigrants. They say they want to turn the land over to "the people" but they never mention Native Americans who have a pretty good argument that the US never paid for the land it took from them. Bumbly's group claim nobody was using the land before the immigrant settlers moved in on the tribe's land therefore the immigrants had a right to take it. So, yeah, white racists with guns moving in on property that isn't theirs. It's an old story.

*edit: omit "getting"
:roll: Lol

I have only commented on the Hammonds and the bad behavior of the government. You trying to paint me as siding with the Bundy occupation is perpetuating a lie. Not surprised, when sticking to the truth forfeits your arguments and accusations.
 

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
:roll: Lol

I have only commented on the Hammonds and the bad behavior of the government. You trying to paint me as siding with the Bundy occupation is perpetuating a lie. Not surprised, when sticking to the truth forfeits your arguments and accusations.
I'm not interested in winning an argument with a half-wit like you. I just figured that as long as you are posting in this thread, you might actually discuss the topic. So, how bout those occupiers?
 

pnwmystery

Well-Known Member
All the arm flailing while fabricating your retort here could exhaust a good size commercial grow.

Yes, I provided a link. Again, I have made no comment on the occupation. You could ask for one.
How droll - the wording of the post to how you tout the article as some sort of "supreme truth," definitely seems like an opinion/comment. Who knows, maybe you can surprise someone. What's your comment?
 

bravedave

Well-Known Member
I'm not interested in winning an argument with a half-wit like you. I just figured that as long as you are posting in this thread, you might actually discuss the topic. So, how bout those occupiers?
Ding, ding, ding. Hand that man a cigar.
I think the behavior of the government in this matter is certainly worthy of protest and a nice big, loud,peaceful,gathering decrying the re-sentencing if the Hammonds and asking (demanding?) for legislative clarity on these specific issues so UNELECTED gov. agencies are not left to weave their bullshit irrespective of who their policies affect. Would not care even if a few in the crowd carried. You know like a real tea party protest. :)
Was skeptical of the occupation from the beginning but was interested in what could be accomplished. Unfortunately, the occupation lost me the moment violence, not guns, was alluded to. That happened early. Bundy missed his chance to walk softly.
 

budlover13

King Tut
Isn't armed occupation of federal buildings against the law?

From what I saw, a retired member of the FBI was saying that he would be shocked if the FBI wasn't monitoring the situation and preparing in case they are needed. Then he engaged in a lot of speculation about how they are training in the event they need to engage. http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-ff-ruby-ridge-waco-oregon-20160106-story.html

At this time, I'm hopeful that this thing blows over without blowing up. Its really up to the occupiers and depends on what they do.

Bundy can declare victory and head home if he wants to. He has succeeded in getting a spotlight on the rancher's trials and tribulations with the Fed. That Oregon congressman did a pretty good job at describing the situation too. Funny thing is that Rep. Walden is of the opinion that things are getting better because ranchers and US agencies are working more cooperatively than they had before. Still, there is a lot of BS going on on both sides.
I read earlier today that the FBI had already been assigned to the situation.

And yes, occupying a federal building is against the law. But deploying military on US soil is a wider violation in my understanding. National Guard probably ain't up to the task imo. I would think that the FBI could handle it without bringing in our Special Forces. Of course, they do have a history of fucking up armed standoffs, i.e. Waco and Ruby Ridge.
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
If they didn't light a fire they wouldn't be charged. ..

Do you think when the Paiute Indians and other indigenous people in the west who were forced off "government lands" lit camp fires if they had only gotten a burn permit they would have been left alone?
 

londonfog

Well-Known Member
Do you think when the Paiute Indians and other indigenous people in the west who were forced off "government lands" lit camp fires if they had only gotten a burn permit they would have been left alone?
Are you going to return your land to the people it was stolen from or will you continue to be a hypocrite.
Tell us again why you hate public schools, after you went and sent your kids as well.
 

OddBall1st

Well-Known Member
I read earlier today that the FBI had already been assigned to the situation.

And yes, occupying a federal building is against the law. But deploying military on US soil is a wider violation in my understanding. National Guard probably ain't up to the task imo. I would think that the FBI could handle it without bringing in our Special Forces. Of course, they do have a history of fucking up armed standoffs, i.e. Waco and Ruby Ridge.

So if foreign troops air drop in, we have to fight them without the Military ? That sucks.
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Are you going to return your land to the people it was stolen from or will you continue to be a hypocrite.
Tell us again why you hate public schools, after you went and sent your kids as well.

The land I occupy was also occupied by some of my ancestors. Also, for those that do occupy land stolen from people, are those people who had their land stolen still alive? How do you compensate a person that has been dead for hundreds of years?

Schools? Okay, I don't like public schools because they don't really allow competition, they use unjust means to fund themselves and the curriculum was intended to create a populace of obedient cannon foddder, rather than independent thinkers. You are an example of their product.

I will be home schooling my grand children.
 
Last edited:

budlover13

King Tut
So if foreign troops air drop in, we have to fight them without the Military ? That sucks.
No. That would be the circumstance that then allows our military to operate here because it changes things from a civilian area into a battle field if I remember correctly.

And if foreign troops are dropping in, I would like to have everyone holding a weapon capable of meeting the foreign troops with effective fire. You know, standard 30 round magazines, select fire, etc.
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
So if foreign troops air drop in, we have to fight them without the Military ? That sucks.

There was not supposed to be a standing army in the USA. (the constitution forbids it)

In the event of foreign attack, the militias would be called out, thus creating a defense force of "the citizens".

That was supposed to be the whole point of Congress declaring war, which is pretty laughable nowadays, since it is routinely ignored.



Notwithstanding any Lysander Spoonerish arguments I could make that dismantle any kind of involuntary inclusion in a government, it is evident that most people have no idea of how the Constitution was alleged to have worked . For all practical purposes the Constitution (flawed from the beginning) is now a dead document. It was a nice try though.
 

londonfog

Well-Known Member
The land I occupy was also occupied by some of my ancestors. Also, for those that do occupy land stolen from people, are those people who had their land stolen still alive? How do you compensate a person that has been dead for hundreds of years?

Schools? Okay, I don't like public schools because they don't really allow competition, they use unjust means to fund themselves and the curriculum was intended to create a populace of obedient cannon foddder, rather than independent thinkers. You are an example of there product.

I will be home schooling my grand children.
STOP (in the red)...that is not what you said in the past. Now you changing shit up on me.

Public schools do have competition. private schools and home schools for starts. My Independent thinking made me get out the service when Baby Bush invaded Iraq. Hell I was wanting to do 30 years. Only got to 22.

You say you will be home schooling your grand-babies, Should you have started already and do you think your son will let you, seeing how they think you are crazy.
 
Top