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

Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
how about finally getting back to the topic of the OP?

The occupation at Malheur is over! Let the aftermath begin.

Fry complained about drying out from lack of MJ, poor boy. One of the mistakes that the occupiers made was to occupy in Harney County where they banned the sale of weed. If they had occupied some place near Eugene, Fry could have stocked up his stash and held out longer.

BURNS, Ore. — The armed occupation of a rural Oregon wildlife refuge ended peacefully here Thursday after 41 days as the last four anti-government activists surrendered to FBI agents, following an dramatic and emotional hour-long negotiation with the final holdout broadcast live on YouTube.

After repeatedly threatening to shoot himself, complaining that he couldn’t get marijuana, and ranting about UFOs, drone strikes in Pakistan, leaking nuclear plants and the government “chemically mutating people,” the last occupier, David Fry, 27, lit a cigarette, shouted “Hallelujah” and walked out of his barricaded encampment into FBI custody.

“I don’t want to be put behind bars,” he said at one point. “I don’t want to take that risk….I didn’t kill anybody.”

The FBI said they arrested David Fry at about 11 a.m. without incident. Before he was taken into custody, agents arrested Sandy Anderson, 48, of Idaho; her husband, Sean Anderson, 47; and Jeff Banta, 46, of Elko, Nev. They were taken to Portland to face federal charges.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
rkymtnman said:
wonder how all these folks were able to take 41 days of work off? probably all sucking on the gov't teat as well.
Click to expand...
From what I can tell, your description is apt. They are losers. As are most members of "freedom" militias. My opinion for what its worth, they are unwilling to look to themselves as the main cause of their being a loser, they blame the gubmint and selectively read the bible, the book of Mormon or constertooshun or whatever to justify their acts.

I mean, Fry was a nobody. Ammon Bundy had a pretty bleak existence and also a nobody except for his fathers strange behavior. I mean, have you ever driven through that shit hole his father is squatting on? His father, also a loser, has squandered any inheritance the Bundy brothers could have received. One or both of them are represented by legal attorneys paid for by the state because they can't afford one.
 
undercovergrow

undercovergrow

Well-Known Member
sorry to OP for straying off thread topic but thanks to @Corso312 for responding and @Fogdog your post regarding consent was excellent. i'm glad you aren't too terribly scarred @Corso312 unless you mean that as you get older your women are getting older too...that might get kinda gross...

upload_2016-2-11_16-43-16.jpeg

it is unfortunate that the ranchers didn't have a more cohesive argument regarding their cause and what they were hoping to accomplish and, obviously, that they took over (with guns) an unimportant and unoccupied government building. while the government is buying up a lot of land and i always question big government motives, the family seems to have been fighting this for a long time and it seems they've completely failed at public relations regarding this subject.
 
NLXSK1

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
ChesusRice said:
What if it was a priest?
Most victims of child molestation consent to their molester. Rob Roy says as long as the child consents the adult is good to go. He also says. If you try to stop it. You are the transgressor. Fact. If you are an adult and I catch you having sex with my kid. You won't have to worry about legal consequences.
Click to expand...
How much time do you spend fixated on this stuff?
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
undercovergrow said:
sorry to OP for straying off thread topic but thanks to @Corso312 for responding and @Fogdog your post regarding consent was excellent. i'm glad you aren't too terribly scarred @Corso312 unless you mean that as you get older your women are getting older too...that might get kinda gross...

View attachment 3606111

it is unfortunate that the ranchers didn't have a more cohesive argument regarding their cause and what they were hoping to accomplish and, obviously, that they took over (with guns) an unimportant and unoccupied government building. while the government is buying up a lot of land and i always question big government motives, the family seems to have been fighting this for a long time and it seems they've completely failed at public relations regarding this subject.
Click to expand...
If you are talking about the Bundy family, they failed legally, they failed logically, they failed financially once the gov enforces the debt that Cliven has accrued and they failed just about any other way one can. As far a starting a sagebrush revolt is concerned, look at who came to the occupation. There was one rancher in the whole affair and he didn't even live on his ranch land any more. His family won't own that ranch either once his unpaid grazing fees and penalties are collected.

I'm with you in suspecting the Feds. Its almost a reflex of mine. War on Drugs, don't get me going on that. But I prefer the constitution and laws that we have to ones written by ranchers who don't ranch and other gun toting losers.
 
Last edited:
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Rrog said:
Glad they're all rounded up and thrown behind bars. Glad daddy Cliven is gonna get a chance to "explain the black man' to his new penitentiary pals.
Click to expand...
Thanks for tipping us off regarding Cliven Bundy. Arrested at Portland Airport before he could drive out to the occupation.
The aftermath of all this can still get messy. There are still armed militia in the Burns area. Hope that they feel unwelcome and pack up before they do anything that will cause them to be locked up too.

Oregon's jails are pretty full. Maybe we can look at this as a prisoner exchange. For every so called militia member locked up, one nonviolent drug offender will be released.
 
londonfog

londonfog

Well-Known Member
Rrog said:
Glad they're all rounded up and thrown behind bars. Glad daddy Cliven is gonna get a chance to "explain the black man' to his new penitentiary pals.
Click to expand...
hmmmm. They will fit right in with their sorts. The skin heads and aryan will welcome them
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
At the age of 14, a boy's decision whether or not to get that BJ is legally not theirs to make. As with MJ, there is no way to prevent a kid from partaking in sex if they really want it. Also, alcohol and heroin. Kids do shit like this. Because kids aren't fully developed in terms understanding the long term effect of what they are doing, they aren't held to the same standard as adults. Its up to adults, all adults, to make the right decisions in the interest of the developing adult. A 14 year-old boys' guardians are the ones responsible to raise a healthy well adjusted man. I don't know if you have kids or not but I'm pretty sure you wouldn't want your 14 year old to become involved with an adult.

Sex and the pleasure coming from it cause changes in the brain in regions mostly associated with emotional bonding. These changes are variable from person to person but also stronger in children. Sometimes what that woman did causes emotional harm, especially if the child abuser continued with the relationship and the child forms a bond with the older partner. Sometimes the abuser is a predator and uses their unequal position in the relationship to coerce, manipulate and use the child in harmful ways. So, all told, I'd say you got off lucky (pun intended).

If your parents had found out about your liaison, it would be up to them to decide how much harm you experienced and whether or not to press charges. The justice system generally leaves this decision up to the parents unless there is evidence of parental neglect or abuse. The law is mainly a tool to give parents a way to keep sexual predators away from children. The law says that 40 year old woman must leave 14 year old boys alone. The woman that gave you the BJ is by definition a child abuser. If she had harmed you, your parents had the ability to press charges and gain damages. I'm glad to hear you think that BJ did not cause harm. No STDs, no other issues, good.

Underlying the discussion with Rob is the basic question of whether or not a child can give consent to such an act. He says that they can, although he won't use those words. He also says that a shopkeeper or any business can deny access to their services for whatever reason. The rolling back of protection to equal rights of minorities and stripping the ability of parents to protect kids is at the heart of disagreement with him. His completely hypothetical views on society, views that are unhinged from human behavior or history and narcissistic lack of empathy are disgusting to many, which explains the hard edged replies that RR gets from many on this board. For myself, I've found discussion with RR boring and will not read his posts any more.
Click to expand...

No. I don't ascribe consent to a given age. Therefore I don't say a person of a given age can or cannot consent. It varies with the individual, so your statement was erroneous. I do believe the younger a person is the less likely that individual has developed the wherewithal to consent.

You don't interact with me now, because you fail miserably to present your arguments in any kind of a consistent way and to engage me is to be reminded of your hypocrisy....plus you're mad that you can't defend Bernie Sanders hypocrisy as well. I believe after I flayed you over Bernie, your crying became louder, until you stomped off sucking your thumb.

Also, you're wrong about which of us is more empathetic. You think controlling others is a standard that is worthy of replicating systemically. I do not. I think people own themselves, but not others. You do not.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
ChesusRice said:
What if it was a priest?
Most victims of child molestation consent to their molester. Rob Roy says as long as the child consents the adult is good to go. He also says. If you try to stop it. You are the transgressor. Fact. If you are an adult and I catch you having sex with my kid. You won't have to worry about legal consequences.
Click to expand...

Nice misrepresentation Prohibitionist.

I said IF A PERSON IS CAPABLE OF CONSENTING TO SOMETHING, and what they are consenting to doesn't involve the third party, the third party intervening becomes the transgressor.

You never refuted why that premise above in a generic sense is in error. You were too busy foaming at the mouth and interjecting things and dreaming up kiddie diddling scenarios to sate your appetite for that kind of discussion.

I think in addition to potential halitosis, you may have been dropped on your head as a young Prohibitionist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top