PDA

View Full Version : Warning: Anti-Bundy Talking Point



Ethereal
01-07-2016, 09:11 AM
So I keep hearing from certain elements of the "progressive" movement opining or even fantasizing about a situation where the Bundy protesters/activists hypothetically take over a federal building where there is a substantial or continual federal presence instead of a remote location that is lightly and intermittently staffed like the one they actually occupied. The fantasy aspect involves these activists basically being blown away by an overwhelming federal presence. But I'm pretty sure this actually proving the activists' point, even if it's going over most people's heads. Simply put, they specifically choose this location because it WASN'T some big deal federal installation that is assigned a high priority by the federal government. It's just one of many little federal dots or patrols in the federal archipelago throughout the western US that's main purpose is to impose the federal government's capricious will on the states. And we KNOW that states can have almost NO federal land ownership and still have public conversation programs. It's almost like Americans generally favor conserving their local environment and would generally do so without the federal government coming in and dictating to them how half of their state is going to be managed.

The federal government owns hundreds of millions of acres throughout the western US and they are basically treating these massive areas as museums where states, localities, and individual Americans cannot use them for economic purposes that benefit the entire country. Bundy and his family, whatever you may think of them, have put steak on America's plates and burgers on their grills. This ranching industry can expand on federal territories in the western US without endangering the larger scale ecological balance. There is A LOT of vacant/idle land. At the very least, the land can be devolved to the states, which is how it works in EVERY US state in the east and midwest. Have those states turned into vast industrial wastelands as a result of a more localized, decentralized approach? In Illinois, where I live, there is a tiny percentage of federal territory, yet we have lots of preservation programs throughout the state. There is actually a county level preservation program where I grew up. If the feds left that building and never came back, it would barely make a difference in the larger scheme of things, and the state and local police could still arrest them or negotiate with them.

What percentage of the anti-Bundy crowd has actually gone this specific area? And how many hours total have you spent there in your life? Personally, I've never been there and had no plans to go there anytime soon. I wasn't even aware of its existence until the Bundy brothers occupied it. It's about 2,000 miles away from where I presently live. I'm guessing a tiny, tiny percentage of Americans have ever actually been to this particular location, and I'm also guessing that most people who have been there a non-negligible amount of time are the people who live in the region. There is literally zero argument for siding with the feds EXCEPT rigid enforcement of the law. But let's face it, if every law on the books were enforced as rigidly as some "progressives" suggest, at least 90% of the population would be facing jail time at any given moment, and these particular "progressives" are not even consistent in wanting the law to be applied harshly and rigidly. In fact, they argue strongly against such enforcement in other contexts, especially the context of illegal immigrants, which is an example of MASSIVE illegality - committed by foreign nationals, no less! At least Bundy and crew are the same American citizens who certain people claim are the owners of the contested property. They have much more right to occupy a federal territory than foreign nationals have to immigrate into US territory in direct violation of the federal statutes/codes, yet the former are seen as "terrorists" while millions of foreign nationals coming into America illegally are seen as "undocumented immigrants".

The objection of many people to this protest has nothing to do with practicality or even the law. It's just about crushing white guys with guns. Granted, there are Republicans and conservatives who are against the Bundy protest. Heck, there are even "radical right-wing" groups who are disavowing their actions. But those people are more or less consistent or practical in their reasoning. They don't want to see the Bundy bros riddled with bullets or otherwise massacred by a phalanx of federal agents because they're white and pro-second amendment.

Common Sense
01-07-2016, 09:16 AM
No one wants to see them killed.

Oh and paragraphs would help that become more digestible.

Cigar
01-07-2016, 09:19 AM
No one wants to see them killed.

Oh and paragraphs would help that become more digestible.

They are trying to sucker The Government into a Fight ... if they were really serious, they would try this at Federal Building in Chicago.

Ethereal
01-07-2016, 10:15 AM
No one wants to see them killed.

Oh and paragraphs would help that become more digestible.

Paragraphs added.

And, yes, there are indeed people who want to see them killed.

Ethereal
01-07-2016, 10:21 AM
They are trying to sucker The Government into a Fight ... if they were really serious, they would try this at Federal Building in Chicago.

This statement, not surprisingly, makes zero sense. If they are trying to sucker the government into a fight, then why didn't they try this at a more heavily staffed and trafficked federal installation? Probably because they are NOT trying to "sucker the government into a fight", but are more interested in raising awareness of a political issue, namely, the excessive and disproportionate amount of federal property claims in the western US. In Oregon where this is taking place, the federal government is claiming over half the state! It's even worse in other states like Nevada were the Bundys are from.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1f/Map_of_all_U.S._Federal_Land.jpg/450px-Map_of_all_U.S._Federal_Land.jpg

The Bundy brothers don't want a fight, they want to raise awareness of and promote a solution to a pressing political issue. They are prepared to defend their rights, but they don't want a fight.

Chris
01-07-2016, 10:26 AM
And as the video at http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/56283-This-lady-is-correct makes clear, because the land is not in territories but state the federal government has no right to claim the land.

Cigar
01-07-2016, 10:44 AM
Paragraphs added.

And, yes, there are indeed people who want to see them killed.

They sure as hell picked a really dangerous place ... :laugh:

The Local Police isn't even worried about their security ... :laugh:

They FAILED

Nutz
01-07-2016, 10:51 AM
Paragraphs added.

And, yes, there are indeed people who want to see them killed.

Dead, maimed, surrender...who cares, I just hope they televise the action.

Gypsy
01-07-2016, 10:55 AM
No one wants to see these guys killed. But who in the hell goes off in the wilderness, during winter without warm socks and provisions? They are presently sitting in the woods at a remote federally owned wildlife refuge building. Why didn't they take over the Edith Green - Wendall Wyatt building? I say that the feds turn off the water and electric, not clear the roads of snow and do nothing else. If they are cold enough or hungry enough and if they are the rugged outdoorsy types they claim to be, a hike out of the woods to get provisions and warm socks shouldn't be hard.

Chris
01-07-2016, 10:55 AM
They sure as hell picked a really dangerous place ... :laugh:

The Local Police isn't even worried about their security ... :laugh:

They FAILED

They got you to talk about it. How many threads have you started and participated in. They WON.

Ethereal
01-07-2016, 10:55 AM
They sure as hell picked a really dangerous place ... :laugh:

The Local Police isn't even worried about their security ... :laugh:

They FAILED

Their intention wasn't to fight or intimidate anyone, so they can't fail at it. They just wanted to raise awareness of a political issue and they succeeded massively. Ironically enough, it was people like you severely overreacting to this that helped them to get the kind of attention they were looking for. Pretty clever of them.

Ethereal
01-07-2016, 10:57 AM
Dead, maimed, surrender...who cares, I just hope they televise the action.

Some people care, apparently, otherwise we wouldn't be discussing it. Some people I have noticed are calling for their deaths or some other form of violent response from the federal government. Others (like Cigar) are just fantasizing about it because they like the thought of some white conservative guys getting shot. I would prefer to see a peaceful resolution, and I think the federal government can EASILY manage that as long as they don't overreact like some want them to.

Gypsy
01-07-2016, 10:59 AM
They got you to talk about it. How many threads have you started and participated in. They WON.

Being ridiculed is winning?

Nutz
01-07-2016, 11:01 AM
Some people care, apparently, otherwise we wouldn't be discussing it. Some people I have noticed are calling for their deaths or some other form of violent response from the federal government. Others (like Cigar) are just fantasizing about it because they like the thought of some white conservative guys getting shot. I would prefer to see a peaceful resolution, and I think the federal government can EASILY manage that as long as they don't overreact like some want them to.
Meh...I sympathize with the Hammond's....but Bundy and his brigade are nothing more than pussies and terrorists. I have popcorn....bring on the violence.

Common
01-07-2016, 11:02 AM
I disagree Ethereal and Ill make it short. Cliven Bundy and his sons do not have a right to break the law, they do not have a right to do as they choose with Federal land no more than I do. If you dont like the law work to change it but you cant break it at your will.

Ethereal
01-07-2016, 11:03 AM
No one wants to see these guys killed

I've seen people calling for their deaths. And I've seen other people joking or opining about a scenario involving their death.


. But who in the hell goes off in the wilderness, during winter without warm socks and provisions? They are presently sitting in the woods at a remote federally owned wildlife refuge building. Why didn't they take over the Edith Green - Wendall Wyatt building? I say that the feds turn off the water and electric, not clear the roads of snow and do nothing else. If they are cold enough or hungry enough and if they are the rugged outdoorsy types they claim to be, a hike out of the woods to get provisions and warm socks shouldn't be hard.

I addressed that in my post. They occupied this location precisely because it's in the middle of nowhere and not that important. They didn't want a fight, they just wanted to engage in civil disobedience and political activism, which they have managed to do so far. And to their credit, the feds have not overreacted like some have suggested... but who knows how long that will last? Either way, they did something important, which was raise awareness of a very important problem in the western US, which is the excessive and disproportionate amount of federal territory throughout the region. It simply isn't reasonable or fair for the federal government to "own" over HALF an entire state. Heck, it's not even normal!

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1f/Map_of_all_U.S._Federal_Land.jpg/450px-Map_of_all_U.S._Federal_Land.jpg

Ethereal
01-07-2016, 11:05 AM
Being ridiculed is winning?

Being talked about at all is sometimes a victory in political activism. Perhaps their personal image will suffer, but they might care more about raising awareness of the issue than how they are perceived by the public.

Nutz
01-07-2016, 11:05 AM
I've seen people calling for their deaths. And I've seen other people joking or opining about a scenario involving their death.



I addressed that in my post. They occupied this location precisely because it's in the middle of nowhere and not that important. They didn't want a fight, they just wanted to engage in civil disobedience and political activism, which they have managed to do so far. And to their credit, the feds have not overreacted like some have suggested... but who knows how long that will last? Either way, they did something important, which was raise awareness of a very important problem in the western US, which is the excessive and disproportionate amount of federal territory throughout the region. It simply isn't reasonable or fair for the federal government to "own" over HALF an entire state. Heck, it's not even normal!

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1f/Map_of_all_U.S._Federal_Land.jpg/450px-Map_of_all_U.S._Federal_Land.jpg
Have you read the Oregan state constitution as it applies to federal land?

Ethereal
01-07-2016, 11:09 AM
Meh...I sympathize with the Hammond's....but Bundy and his brigade are nothing more than pussies and terrorists. I have popcorn....bring on the violence.

That's absurd. Whatever they are, they certainly aren't "pussies". It takes a spine to stand up to the federal government like they've done here and at their ranch in Nevada. They could have been killed many times since then. As for them being "terrorists", that is an abuse of the term. All they did was occupy an empty building in the remote wildness. The fact that they are saying belligerent things or carrying arms does not somehow turn them into terrorists. People need to stop labeling every belligerent act in society they dislike as "terrorism". Terrorism is when people fly planes into buildings or shoot up crowds of civilians. It's not when some belligerent guys occupy an empty building in the middle of nowhere.

Nutz
01-07-2016, 11:12 AM
That's absurd. Whatever they are, they certainly aren't "pussies". It takes a spine to stand up to the federal government like they've done here and at their ranch in Nevada. They could have been killed many times since then. As for them being "terrorists", that is an abuse of the term. All they did was occupy an empty building in the remote wildness. The fact that they are saying belligerent things or carrying arms does not somehow turn them into terrorists. People need to stop labeling every belligerent act in society they dislike as "terrorism". Terrorism is when people fly planes into buildings or shoot up crowds of civilians. It's not when some belligerent guys occupy an empty building in the middle of nowhere.

They seized a federal building...they are no different than BLM assholes blocking streets and chanting nonsense about killing cops. There lives have zero value...they are all terrorists and I am tired of the teaper and far left divisive nonsense. Let them all die...I am indifferent. None of them have a legitimate gripe...its all bullshit.

Nutz
01-07-2016, 11:13 AM
Oh...and yes, they are pussies. These assholes threatened to use women as human shields during the first Bundy attack on America. They are no different than killer muslims.

Nutz
01-07-2016, 11:15 AM
For those who are gonna deny that these terrorists threatened to use women as human shields.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzXo9SQMv4Q

Cigar
01-07-2016, 11:15 AM
Oh...and yes, they are pussies. These $#@!s threatened to use women as human shields during the first Bundy attack on America. They are no different than killer muslims.

Killer Muslims ... don't forget to bring their snacks

Gypsy
01-07-2016, 11:15 AM
Being talked about at all is sometimes a victory in political activism. Perhaps their personal image will suffer, but they might care more about raising awareness of the issue than how they are perceived by the public.

I don't think many people care about this issue. No one cared about the Dann sisters.
http://usuncut.com/resistance/dann-sisters-brutalized-by-blm-defending-land/

Ethereal
01-07-2016, 11:15 AM
Have you read the Oregan state constitution as it applies to federal land?

No, I have not, but I don't see how that would negate the points I made because I'm not saying all the land needs to be turned over to the state. I'm just saying SOME of it could be. And it doesn't necessarily have to apply to Oregon. There are plenty of other western states where gigantic swaths of land are sitting idle and vacant. SOME of that land should be open to development and other productive enterprises without federal interference, and that includes the cattle ranching activities of people like the Bundys. They put beef on the table and that should be encouraged, not smothered.

Cigar
01-07-2016, 11:16 AM
For those who are gonna deny that these terrorists threatened to use women as human shields.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzXo9SQMv4Q

You gotta love these tough guys with Guns ... :laugh:

Come try to take The Chicago Federal Building ...

Nutz
01-07-2016, 11:18 AM
No, I have not, but I don't see how that would negate the points I made because I'm not saying all the land needs to be turned over to the state. I'm just saying SOME of it could be. And it doesn't necessarily have to apply to Oregon. There are plenty of other western states where gigantic swaths of land are sitting idle and vacant. SOME of that land should be open to development and other productive enterprises without federal interference, and that includes the cattle ranching activities of people like the Bundys. They put beef on the table and that should be encouraged, not smothered.
So a State and a Federal Constitution disagrees with you....it has for more than a hundred years. Now you think it is appropriate to seize a federal building and terrorize America with threats of violence and revolution because you all of a sudden decided you hate our Constitution and Republic?


Doesn't make much sense. When did you start hating the Constitution and these United States....when Obama became President or prior?

Ethereal
01-07-2016, 11:20 AM
They seized a federal building...they are no different than BLM $#@!s blocking streets and chanting nonsense about killing cops. There lives have zero value...they are all terrorists and I am tired of the teaper and far left divisive nonsense. Let them all die...I am indifferent. None of them have a legitimate gripe...its all bull$#@!.

Just because someone is occupying a building doesn't mean they "seized" it, and even if that were true, it it doesn't remotely rise to the level of "terrorism". I certainly don't feel "terrorized" by their occupation of this empty building in the remote wilderness. And I didn't feel "terrorized" by BLM activists marching down Michigan Avenue or blocking storefronts on the same. At worst, they are a nuisance. That is NOT "terrorism"and to suggest otherwise is melodramatic in the extreme.

And whether or not their gripes are "legitimate" is entirely debatable. I think both movements have very legitimate gripes.

Chris
01-07-2016, 11:21 AM
I don't think many people care about this issue. No one cared about the Dann sisters.
http://usuncut.com/resistance/dann-sisters-brutalized-by-blm-defending-land/

Why all the liberal fuss then?

Nutz
01-07-2016, 11:23 AM
Just because someone is occupying a building doesn't mean they "seized" it, and even if that were true, it it doesn't remotely rise to the level of "terrorism". I certainly don't feel "terrorized" by their occupation of this empty building in the remote wilderness. And I didn't feel "terrorized" by BLM activists marching down Michigan Avenue or blocking storefronts on the same. At worst, they are a nuisance. That is NOT "terrorism"and to suggest otherwise is melodramatic in the extreme.

And whether or not their gripes are "legitimate" is entirely debatable. I think both movements have very legitimate gripes.

Ok...when you take off today...I am going to borrow your home. I am just trying to be a nuisance because I believe tacos should be free. Is that ok...will you send me some snacks so I am not hungry during my friendly take over?

Ethereal
01-07-2016, 11:24 AM
Oh...and yes, they are pussies. These $#@!s threatened to use women as human shields during the first Bundy attack on America. They are no different than killer muslims.

They obviously are different than "killer Muslims" because they haven't killed anyone. That much should be obvious.

And, no, "pussies" do not usually stand up to armed federal agents. You could be killed or seriously injured doing something like that.

Lastly, they did not "threaten" to use anyone as a "human shield". The women themselves volunteered of their own free will to get in front of federal weaponry. Women are capable of exercising their own judgement, you know. They are not all deferential flowers who think men need to take on all the risk of political activism.

Nutz
01-07-2016, 11:26 AM
They obviously are different than "killer Muslims" because they haven't killed anyone. That much should be obvious.

And, no, "pussies" do not usually stand up to armed federal agents. You could be killed or seriously injured doing something like that.

Lastly, they did not "threaten" to use anyone as a "human shield". The women themselves volunteered of their own free will to get in front of federal weaponry. Women are capable of exercising their own judgement, you know. They are not all deferential flowers who think men need to take on all the risk of political activism.
Lol..nice spin. You could be the Jihadi John of these teapers (can't remember the BS name they made up).

Green Arrow
01-07-2016, 11:26 AM
Just because someone is occupying a building doesn't mean they "seized" it, and even if that were true, it it doesn't remotely rise to the level of "terrorism". I certainly don't feel "terrorized" by their occupation of this empty building in the remote wilderness. And I didn't feel "terrorized" by BLM activists marching down Michigan Avenue or blocking storefronts on the same. At worst, they are a nuisance. That is NOT "terrorism"and to suggest otherwise is melodramatic in the extreme.

And whether or not their gripes are "legitimate" is entirely debatable. I think both movements have very legitimate gripes.

I don't feel terrorized either, but I also don't feel that it is morally right for them to start an armed occupation of a building that does not belong to them with intent to do harm. If they went home, put the guns away, and re-occupied the same building without intent to do harm, I would have zero problems with what they are doing.

Ethereal
01-07-2016, 11:26 AM
For those who are gonna deny that these terrorists threatened to use women as human shields.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzXo9SQMv4Q

Here's a crazy thought. Maybe the women wanted to be up front because they genuinely believe in the political cause they were fighting for. They are not slaves to their male relatives and friends as you seem to think.

Nutz
01-07-2016, 11:27 AM
Here's a crazy thought. Maybe the women wanted to be up front because they genuinely believe in the political cause they were fighting for. They are not slaves to their male relatives and friends as you seem to think.
lol...yes, they would be like the suicide bombers...sacrificing their life for free access to tax payer land. LOL...you truly are their Jihadi John!

Gypsy
01-07-2016, 11:28 AM
Here's a crazy thought. Maybe the women wanted to be up front because they genuinely believe in the political cause they were fighting for. They are not slaves to their male relatives and friends as you seem to think.

That is a crazy thought.

Ethereal
01-07-2016, 11:28 AM
You gotta love these tough guys with Guns ... :laugh:

Come try to take The Chicago Federal Building ...

Why do you keep repeating this asinine talking about? They chose this location precisely because it was lightly staffed and in a remote location. They don't want to fight anyone. They want to draw attention to a political issue. The only ones who seem to be aching for a fight are people like you. You can't seem to contain your excitement at the prospect of an armed conflict.

Truth Detector
01-07-2016, 11:29 AM
Yep, in Liberal loony land it's only okay to OCCUPY Federal and State buildings if you're part of a leftist Union or a whacko leftist organization like Occupy Wallstreet.

Otherwise, they want the State to goose step over others rights and liberties because, well, they aren't leftist whackos bent on destroying everyone's liberties and freedoms.

Nutz
01-07-2016, 11:29 AM
Why do you keep repeating this asinine talking about? They chose this location precisely because it was lightly staffed and in a remote location. They don't want to fight anyone. They want to draw attention to a political issue. The only ones who seem to be aching for a fight are people like you. You can't seem to contain your excitement at the prospect of an armed conflict.
They chose that location because they are wusses. Real patriots would have looked for a challenge...these terrorists took the easy way out.

Ethereal
01-07-2016, 11:32 AM
Ok...when you take off today...I am going to borrow your home. I am just trying to be a nuisance because I believe tacos should be free. Is that ok...will you send me some snacks so I am not hungry during my friendly take over?

Do you actually believe your attempts to conflate a personal residence with a remote federal outpost will work? And let's assume for one second that they could be conflated, how would occupying my residence have any logical connection to your agenda? Am I stopping you from getting free tacos somehow? At least with the Bundy activists, their occupation of a sacred federal building has a logical connection to the political agenda they're trying to raise awareness of. Maybe you can come up with a better analogy?

Ethereal
01-07-2016, 11:33 AM
Lol..nice spin. You could be the Jihadi John of these teapers (can't remember the BS name they made up).

Not sure what you're talking about.

Nutz
01-07-2016, 11:33 AM
Do you actually believe your attempts to conflate a personal residence with a remote federal outpost will work? And let's assume for one second that they could be conflated, how would occupying my residence have any logical connection to your agenda? Am I stopping you from getting free tacos somehow? At least with the Bundy activists, their occupation of a sacred federal building has a logical connection to the political agenda they're trying to raise awareness of. Maybe you can come up with a better analogy?
The analogy is as ridiculous as your position on this subject matter. You are supporting terrorists because you don't believe in the Constitution of the United States.

Nutz
01-07-2016, 11:34 AM
Not sure what you're talking about.
You could be the spokesperson for this terrorist movement.

Cigar
01-07-2016, 11:34 AM
Why do you keep repeating this asinine talking about? They chose this location precisely because it was lightly staffed and in a remote location. They don't want to fight anyone. They want to draw attention to a political issue. The only ones who seem to be aching for a fight are people like you. You can't seem to contain your excitement at the prospect of an armed conflict.

Would you rather I change my handle to Mr D and talk about Black People and Chicago? :laugh:

Chris
01-07-2016, 11:36 AM
You could be the spokesperson for this terrorist movement.

What terrorist movement?

Ethereal
01-07-2016, 11:37 AM
I don't feel terrorized either, but I also don't feel that it is morally right for them to start an armed occupation of a building that does not belong to them with intent to do harm. If they went home, put the guns away, and re-occupied the same building without intent to do harm, I would have zero problems with what they are doing.

Well, who does it belong to then? Because the federal government is the agent of the states and the people, and our tax dollars sustain its existence, so aren't the Bundys technically part owners of that building?

But let's assume they are not part owners, what "intent to do harm" is there? All they are doing is occupying an empty building in a remote area. This isn't strictly legal, but that does not mean they have "intent to harm" in the sense you mean it. They have intent to defend themselves if necessary, but they have no aggressive intent as far as I can tell. Yes, they are armed and they are engaging in civil disobedience, but nobody is being harmed by it. So if they do have intent to harm, then they've failed to realize their intent.

Nutz
01-07-2016, 11:37 AM
What terrorist movement?

The Bundy terrorists...you should pay attention.

Nutz
01-07-2016, 11:38 AM
Well, who does it belong to then? Because the federal government is the agent of the states and the people, and our tax dollars sustain its existence, so aren't the Bundys technically part owners of that building?

But let's assume they are not part owners, what "intent to do harm" is there? All they are doing is occupying an empty building in a remote area. This isn't strictly legal, but that does not mean they have "intent to harm" in the sense you mean it. They have intent to defend themselves if necessary, but they have no aggressive intent as far as I can tell. Yes, they are armed and they are engaging in civil disobedience, but nobody is being harmed by it. So if they do have intent to harm, then they've failed to realize their intent.
I am part owner of that building as well.

I say they can't have it.

Chris
01-07-2016, 11:41 AM
The Bundy terrorists...you should pay attention.

To leftwing PC attempting to denigrate them, nah. I prefer reality.

Ethereal
01-07-2016, 11:42 AM
lol...yes, they would be like the suicide bombers...sacrificing their life for free access to tax payer land. LOL...you truly are their Jihadi John!

Except suicide bombers blow other people up, which is not what those women intended to do or did do, which means they wouldn't be like suicide bombers at all. You keep applying terms to these people that clearly do not apply. Either you are purposely misrepresenting the situation or you don't understand basic concepts like "suicide bombers" or "killer Muslims".

And why do you keep insulting me? Do you insult everyone who disagrees with your political opinion?

Ethereal
01-07-2016, 11:43 AM
That is a crazy thought.

Perhaps so. I definitely wouldn't do it. Nonetheless, it was their choice.

Nutz
01-07-2016, 11:43 AM
To leftwing PC attempting to denigrate them, nah. I prefer reality.


lol...I am not left wing. Nice effort though. Next time, just ask instead of applying a label on someone that you don't know.

Ethereal
01-07-2016, 11:44 AM
They chose that location because they are wusses. Real patriots would have looked for a challenge...these terrorists took the easy way out.

That's a swell opinion, but I disagree for the reasons stated earlier.

Green Arrow
01-07-2016, 11:44 AM
Well, who does it belong to then? Because the federal government is the agent of the states and the people, and our tax dollars sustain its existence, so aren't the Bundys technically part owners of that building?

But let's assume they are not part owners, what "intent to do harm" is there? All they are doing is occupying an empty building in a remote area. This isn't strictly legal, but that does not mean they have "intent to harm" in the sense you mean it. They have intent to defend themselves if necessary, but they have no aggressive intent as far as I can tell. Yes, they are armed and they are engaging in civil disobedience, but nobody is being harmed by it. So if they do have intent to harm, then they've failed to realize their intent.

What is the point of an armed occupation if you have no intent to use your arms to stop anyone from ending your occupation?

Truth Detector
01-07-2016, 11:45 AM
lol...I am not left wing. Nice effort though. Next time, just ask instead of applying a label on someone that you don't know.

Get used to this; his favorite memes are neocon and crony Capitalist.

Nutz
01-07-2016, 11:45 AM
Except suicide bombers blow other people up, which is not what those women intended to do or did do, which means they wouldn't be like suicide bombers at all. You keep applying terms to these people that clearly do not apply. Either you are purposely misrepresenting the situation or you don't understand basic concepts like "suicide bombers" or "killer Muslims".

And why do you keep insulting me? Do you insult everyone who disagrees with your political opinion?

Where did insult you...I am actually on my best behavior.

Either way...they are terrorists. It wouldn't surprise me if these looney ladies strapped a little C4 to their bosoms.

Green Arrow
01-07-2016, 11:45 AM
I am part owner of that building as well.

I say they can't have it.

I am part owner of that building and I say they can.

Checkmate.

Nutz
01-07-2016, 11:46 AM
Get used to this; his favorite memes are neocon and crony Capitalist.

He must be a teaper

Nutz
01-07-2016, 11:47 AM
I am part owner of that building and I say they can.

Checkmate.
Oh, so it is okay for the police to enter the premises?

Truth Detector
01-07-2016, 11:48 AM
What is the point of an armed occupation if you have no intent to use your arms to stop anyone from ending your occupation?

To get the attention it is getting for the despicable re-Imprisonment of citizens who had already served their original sentences and were released.

I thnk it worked; except for the typically false media narrative trying to portray this not as an egregious miscarriage of justice, but merely labeling them as a bunch of right wing gun nuts and terrorists.

Truth Detector
01-07-2016, 11:49 AM
He must be a teaper

He's well beyond that.

Green Arrow
01-07-2016, 11:50 AM
To get the attention it is getting for the despicable re-Imprisonment of citizens who had already served their original sentences and were released.

I thnk it worked; except for the typically false media narrative trying to portray this not as an egregious miscarriage of justice, but merely labeling them as a bunch of right wing gun nuts and terrorists.

You can get that attention peacefully. All they have succeeded in doing is turning damn near everybody in the country, including Ammon Bundy's own father, against them.

Green Arrow
01-07-2016, 11:50 AM
He must be a teaper

What the hell is a teaper?

Ethereal
01-07-2016, 11:51 AM
The analogy is as ridiculous as your position on this subject matter. You are supporting terrorists because you don't believe in the Constitution of the United States.

Incorrect. I generally support the US Constitution. I just differ in my interpretation of it. I interpret it through an originalist lens. And all one needs to do in order to realize the constitutionally perverse nature of federal "land ownership" in the western US is to look at a map federal territories in the US:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1f/Map_of_all_U.S._Federal_Land.jpg/450px-Map_of_all_U.S._Federal_Land.jpg

All the original states, along with many states that were added later, have virtually no federal territories in their jurisdictions. It's obvious on its face that the situation in the western US is a radical departure from the original intent of the Constitution.

So you can go around calling people you disagree with "terrorists" and other silly, melodramatic insults, but it only reinforces your lack of a logic-based position.

Cigar
01-07-2016, 11:52 AM
You can get that attention peacefully. All they have succeeded in doing is turning damn near everybody in the country, including Ammon Bundy's own father, against them.

Peaceful Bi-Partition Protest Works :grin:

http://d.ibtimes.co.uk/en/full/1413354/eric-garner-i-cant-breathe-protests.jpg

Ethereal
01-07-2016, 11:52 AM
You could be the spokesperson for this terrorist movement.

Whatever you say, "Nutz".

Ethereal
01-07-2016, 11:53 AM
Would you rather I change my handle to Mr D and talk about Black People and Chicago? :laugh:

I would rather you make some kind of fact- or logic-based argument. Not sure if that's possible, though.

Ethereal
01-07-2016, 11:54 AM
I am part owner of that building as well.

I say they can't have it.

So when are you going there to press your claim?

Nutz
01-07-2016, 11:55 AM
What the hell is a teaper?

Tea Partier

Nutz
01-07-2016, 11:56 AM
So when are you going there to press your claim?
I thought you didn't want to see any violence. You think they would let me in to watch the birds?

Ethereal
01-07-2016, 11:56 AM
What is the point of an armed occupation if you have no intent to use your arms to stop anyone from ending your occupation?

To deter people from removing them against their will. We actually don't know what their real intent is. And if their intent is to harm people, then why haven't they done so?

Nutz
01-07-2016, 11:57 AM
Whatever you say, "Nutz".
Ok, Yee'Hadi John

Nutz
01-07-2016, 11:57 AM
To deter people from removing them against their will. We actually don't know what their real intent is. And if their intent is to harm people, then why haven't they done so?
Then why don't they turn themselves in?

Ethereal
01-07-2016, 12:00 PM
Where did insult you...I am actually on my best behavior.

Either way...they are terrorists. It wouldn't surprise me if these looney ladies strapped a little C4 to their bosoms.

You keep calling me "Jihadi John" and saying I would be a good spokesperson for "terrorists". That's an insult according to any rational standard.

And whether you would be surprised or not is irrelevant. They did not do anything remotely approaching a suicide bombing, ergo they are not like suicide bombers at all.

Ethereal
01-07-2016, 12:01 PM
Oh, so it is okay for the police to enter the premises?

That would depend largely on the intentions of both parties, which are not really known.

Ethereal
01-07-2016, 12:02 PM
You can get that attention peacefully. All they have succeeded in doing is turning damn near everybody in the country, including Ammon Bundy's own father, against them.

Maybe they are more concerned with raising awareness of this issue than they are with how they are personally viewed by the public. And how have they not been peaceful? They haven't harmed anyone. And they didn't destroy any property as far as I'm aware. They may be armed and saying belligerent things, but those are both protected under the first and second amendments.

MisterVeritis
01-07-2016, 12:07 PM
No one wants to see these guys killed. But who in the hell goes off in the wilderness, during winter without warm socks and provisions? They are presently sitting in the woods at a remote federally owned wildlife refuge building. Why didn't they take over the Edith Green - Wendall Wyatt building? I say that the feds turn off the water and electric, not clear the roads of snow and do nothing else. If they are cold enough or hungry enough and if they are the rugged outdoorsy types they claim to be, a hike out of the woods to get provisions and warm socks shouldn't be hard.
People always show up less prepared than they should. The core of the group no doubt came prepared.

I doubt there is electricity and water to shut off. Remote places tend to run on local generator power and use local water tanks.

Ethereal
01-07-2016, 12:07 PM
I thought you didn't want to see any violence. You think they would let me in to watch the birds?

I don't want to see any violence. And they already stated their intention not to obstruct Americans from using the area:

“This refuge here is rightfully owned by the people and we intend to use it,” he said, adding that they plan to assisting ranchers, loggers, hunters and campers who want to use the land. “We will be here as a unified body of people that understand the principles of the Constitution.”
--The Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/01/03/armed-militia-bundy-brothers-take-over-federal-building-in-rural-oregon/)

Green Arrow
01-07-2016, 12:09 PM
To deter people from removing them against their will. We actually don't know what their real intent is. And if their intent is to harm people, then why haven't they done so?

Deter them how? If the feds try to remove them from the premises but otherwise do them no harm, would they open fire? My reading of their statements suggests yes, and if I'm right that is not peaceful or appropriate.

Ethereal
01-07-2016, 12:09 PM
Then why don't they turn themselves in?

Because they want to engage in a prolonged act of civil disobedience.

If their intent is to inflict harm, then why haven't they done so?

MisterVeritis
01-07-2016, 12:11 PM
They seized a federal building...they are no different than BLM $#@!s blocking streets and chanting nonsense about killing cops. There lives have zero value...they are all terrorists and I am tired of the teaper and far left divisive nonsense. Let them all die...I am indifferent. None of them have a legitimate gripe...its all bull$#@!.
Your name selection was perfect.

Ethereal
01-07-2016, 12:14 PM
Deter them how? If the feds try to remove them from the premises but otherwise do them no harm, would they open fire? My reading of their statements suggests yes, and if I'm right that is not peaceful or appropriate.

I'm actually just speculating. Perhaps it is all for show and they would voluntarily surrender if the feds moved in. Maybe their firearms aren't even loaded. All we can do at this point is look at their actions, and thus far they have been basically harmless. Granted, it may not be strictly legal, but the material effect of what they've done seems to be on par with driving twenty miles an hour over the speed limit on the highway. Basically, a big nothing.

Crepitus
01-07-2016, 12:15 PM
Why all the liberal fuss then?
Because people love drama.

Green Arrow
01-07-2016, 12:17 PM
I'm actually just speculating. Perhaps it is all for show and they would voluntarily surrender if the feds moved in. Maybe their firearms aren't even loaded. All we can do at this point is look at their actions, and thus far they have been basically harmless. Granted, it may not be strictly legal, but the material effect of what they've done seems to be on par with driving twenty miles an hour over the speed limit on the highway. Basically, a big nothing.

Their brandishing of weapons is really the only aspect of this I find troubling. If it is all for show and they are bluffing, I have no issues.

Crepitus
01-07-2016, 12:17 PM
I don't feel terrorized either, but I also don't feel that it is morally right for them to start an armed occupation of a building that does not belong to them with intent to do harm. If they went home, put the guns away, and re-occupied the same building without intent to do harm, I would have zero problems with what they are doing.
Hear hear!

Crepitus
01-07-2016, 12:22 PM
To deter people from removing them against their will. We actually don't know what their real intent is. And if their intent is to harm people, then why haven't they done so?
My theory is they want to martyr themselves.

Chris
01-07-2016, 12:25 PM
Because people love drama.

Life is so f-ing boring.

Ethereal
01-07-2016, 12:26 PM
My theory is they want to martyr themselves.

If that's what they wanted to do, then why didn't they pick a place that was more likely to elicit a violent response from the authorities?

Crepitus
01-07-2016, 12:29 PM
Life is so f-ing boring.

It is to some people.

13862

Crepitus
01-07-2016, 12:31 PM
If that's what they wanted to do, then why didn't they pick a place that was more likely to elicit a violent response from the authorities?
Drag it out a little, provoke a response, instant massacre. Out there it makes them look like the victims rather than the instigators.

Gypsy
01-07-2016, 12:31 PM
People always show up less prepared than they should. The core of the group no doubt came prepared.

I doubt there is electricity and water to shut off. Remote places tend to run on local generator power and use local water tanks.

I can't imagine showing up and not being prepared for the elements and without food. Then again, I'm a NAVY brat and being prepared for any scenario was ingrained in me.

MisterVeritis
01-07-2016, 12:43 PM
I can't imagine showing up and not being prepared for the elements and without food. Then again, I'm a NAVY brat and being prepared for any scenario was ingrained in me.
You are not likely to see something on TV and just run off to join. Some do.

Movements always attract unprepared groupies. In a small group of 10-12 people adding just one or two unprepared people is a big deal. So the leaders asked for donations to take up the slack. It is what a good leader does. I imagine your Navy parent taught you that as well.

Nutz
01-07-2016, 01:22 PM
Incorrect. I generally support the US Constitution. I just differ in my interpretation of it. I interpret it through an originalist lens. And all one needs to do in order to realize the constitutionally perverse nature of federal "land ownership" in the western US is to look at a map federal territories in the US:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1f/Map_of_all_U.S._Federal_Land.jpg/450px-Map_of_all_U.S._Federal_Land.jpg

All the original states, along with many states that were added later, have virtually no federal territories in their jurisdictions. It's obvious on its face that the situation in the western US is a radical departure from the original intent of the Constitution.

So you can go around calling people you disagree with "terrorists" and other silly, melodramatic insults, but it only reinforces your lack of a logic-based position.
You are so incredibly wrong, it is ridiculous. Once again...I ask you to review the state constitutions of the Western states. The land was GIVEN to the federal government via the state constitutions.

So, now that you have been educated...do you still hate the constitution and America? I mean...the original intent has been followed.

Nutz
01-07-2016, 01:23 PM
I don't want to see any violence. And they already stated their intention not to obstruct Americans from using the area:

“This refuge here is rightfully owned by the people and we intend to use it,” he said, adding that they plan to assisting ranchers, loggers, hunters and campers who want to use the land. “We will be here as a unified body of people that understand the principles of the Constitution.”
--The Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/01/03/armed-militia-bundy-brothers-take-over-federal-building-in-rural-oregon/)
LOL...terrorists lie.

Nutz
01-07-2016, 01:24 PM
Because they want to engage in a prolonged act of civil disobedience.

If their intent is to inflict harm, then why haven't they done so?
Because they are pussies.

Nutz
01-07-2016, 01:25 PM
My theory is they want to martyr themselves.

My hope is they do

Chris
01-07-2016, 01:35 PM
My hope is they do

So you want them to die?

GRUMPY
01-07-2016, 01:37 PM
They are trying to sucker The Government into a Fight ... if they were really serious, they would try this at Federal Building in Chicago.

why are they attempting to operate a ranch in chicago...

GRUMPY
01-07-2016, 01:38 PM
Because they are pussies.

son, the only pussy you have any familiarity with would be your mothers...

Nutz
01-07-2016, 01:39 PM
son, the only $#@! you have any familiarity with would be your mothers...
Wow...that was impressive. If there is ever a Wit-Olympics, you are sure to win a gold medal.

Nutz
01-07-2016, 01:40 PM
So you want them to die?
I am in indifferent. A little blood and gore goes well with popcorn. Whatever happens, I sure hope it is televised

GRUMPY
01-07-2016, 01:40 PM
You are so incredibly wrong, it is ridiculous. Once again...I ask you to review the state constitutions of the Western states. The land was GIVEN to the federal government via the state constitutions.

So, now that you have been educated...do you still hate the constitution and America? I mean...the original intent has been followed.

this was required as part of gain statehood...there is nothing within the us constitution that allows for the states in question to be treated differently from any preceding...

GRUMPY
01-07-2016, 01:41 PM
Their brandishing of weapons is really the only aspect of this I find troubling. If it is all for show and they are bluffing, I have no issues.

why would anyone find the simple display of firearms troubling...

Nutz
01-07-2016, 01:42 PM
this was required as part of gain statehood...there is nothing within the us constitution that allows for the states in question to be treated differently from any preceding...
What?

Holy cow...can you get the grand teaper to translate that for me. It sorta sounds like BS to hide that you hate American and the Constitution.

GRUMPY
01-07-2016, 01:43 PM
You can get that attention peacefully. All they have succeeded in doing is turning damn near everybody in the country, including Ammon Bundy's own father, against them.


this is a rather silly statement and historically shown to be wrong...

Truth Detector
01-07-2016, 02:29 PM
You can get that attention peacefully. All they have succeeded in doing is turning damn near everybody in the country, including Ammon Bundy's own father, against them.

How is this not peaceful?

Green Arrow
01-07-2016, 02:48 PM
How is this not peaceful?

I've explained it a number of times. If you occupy a building with weapons and declare your preparedness to die to stay there, you are not being peaceful.

Crepitus
01-07-2016, 03:30 PM
How is this not peaceful?
armed takeover ≠ peaceful

GRUMPY
01-07-2016, 04:17 PM
I've explained it a number of times. If you occupy a building with weapons and declare your preparedness to die to stay there, you are not being peaceful.

peace through strength son...si vis pacem para bellum...

GRUMPY
01-07-2016, 04:20 PM
Wow...that was impressive. If there is ever a Wit-Olympics, you are sure to win a gold medal.

are we still discussing your mother...as i remember not quite that impressive son...

Crepitus
01-07-2016, 04:27 PM
why would anyone find the simple display of firearms troubling...
There is a difference between displaying and brandishing. If you are displaying firearms and threatening people (much less law enforcement) you are brandishing which is a crime.

Nutz
01-07-2016, 04:38 PM
are we still discussing your mother...as i remember not quite that impressive son...
Most corpses aren'T too impressive. Nonetheless, as long as we are talking about bitches...how are you.

Chris
01-07-2016, 04:41 PM
I am in indifferent. A little blood and gore goes well with popcorn. Whatever happens, I sure hope it is televised

Glad you backed off that gruesome wish.

Nutz
01-07-2016, 04:51 PM
Glad you backed off that gruesome wish.
I would never shed a tear over a dead teaper terrorist

Private Pickle
01-07-2016, 04:53 PM
So I keep hearing from certain elements of the "progressive" movement opining or even fantasizing about a situation where the Bundy protesters/activists hypothetically take over a federal building where there is a substantial or continual federal presence instead of a remote location that is lightly and intermittently staffed like the one they actually occupied. The fantasy aspect involves these activists basically being blown away by an overwhelming federal presence. But I'm pretty sure this actually proving the activists' point, even if it's going over most people's heads. Simply put, they specifically choose this location because it WASN'T some big deal federal installation that is assigned a high priority by the federal government. It's just one of many little federal dots or patrols in the federal archipelago throughout the western US that's main purpose is to impose the federal government's capricious will on the states. And we KNOW that states can have almost NO federal land ownership and still have public conversation programs. It's almost like Americans generally favor conserving their local environment and would generally do so without the federal government coming in and dictating to them how half of their state is going to be managed.

The federal government owns hundreds of millions of acres throughout the western US and they are basically treating these massive areas as museums where states, localities, and individual Americans cannot use them for economic purposes that benefit the entire country. Bundy and his family, whatever you may think of them, have put steak on America's plates and burgers on their grills. This ranching industry can expand on federal territories in the western US without endangering the larger scale ecological balance. There is A LOT of vacant/idle land. At the very least, the land can be devolved to the states, which is how it works in EVERY US state in the east and midwest. Have those states turned into vast industrial wastelands as a result of a more localized, decentralized approach? In Illinois, where I live, there is a tiny percentage of federal territory, yet we have lots of preservation programs throughout the state. There is actually a county level preservation program where I grew up. If the feds left that building and never came back, it would barely make a difference in the larger scheme of things, and the state and local police could still arrest them or negotiate with them.

What percentage of the anti-Bundy crowd has actually gone this specific area? And how many hours total have you spent there in your life? Personally, I've never been there and had no plans to go there anytime soon. I wasn't even aware of its existence until the Bundy brothers occupied it. It's about 2,000 miles away from where I presently live. I'm guessing a tiny, tiny percentage of Americans have ever actually been to this particular location, and I'm also guessing that most people who have been there a non-negligible amount of time are the people who live in the region. There is literally zero argument for siding with the feds EXCEPT rigid enforcement of the law. But let's face it, if every law on the books were enforced as rigidly as some "progressives" suggest, at least 90% of the population would be facing jail time at any given moment, and these particular "progressives" are not even consistent in wanting the law to be applied harshly and rigidly. In fact, they argue strongly against such enforcement in other contexts, especially the context of illegal immigrants, which is an example of MASSIVE illegality - committed by foreign nationals, no less! At least Bundy and crew are the same American citizens who certain people claim are the owners of the contested property. They have much more right to occupy a federal territory than foreign nationals have to immigrate into US territory in direct violation of the federal statutes/codes, yet the former are seen as "terrorists" while millions of foreign nationals coming into America illegally are seen as "undocumented immigrants".

The objection of many people to this protest has nothing to do with practicality or even the law. It's just about crushing white guys with guns. Granted, there are Republicans and conservatives who are against the Bundy protest. Heck, there are even "radical right-wing" groups who are disavowing their actions. But those people are more or less consistent or practical in their reasoning. They don't want to see the Bundy bros riddled with bullets or otherwise massacred by a phalanx of federal agents because they're white and pro-second amendment.

A well read and thoughtful post. I bet 10% of the people who read this will actually get it but good on ya.

Nutz
01-07-2016, 04:54 PM
are we still discussing your mother...as i remember not quite that impressive son...
Is it typical for dumbass teapers to talk about family on this forum...say something about my dead mother to my face and I will gladly fuck you up.

Private Pickle
01-07-2016, 04:55 PM
I disagree Ethereal and Ill make it short. Cliven Bundy and his sons do not have a right to break the law, they do not have a right to do as they choose with Federal land no more than I do. If you dont like the law work to change it but you cant break it at your will.

Neither do illegal aliens but here we are.

Private Pickle
01-07-2016, 04:56 PM
Is it typical for dumbass teapers to talk about family on this forum...say something about my dead mother to my face and I will gladly fuck you up.

http://thepoliticalforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=13863&stc=1

Chris
01-07-2016, 04:57 PM
I would never shed a tear over a dead corpse

Unless of course it was family, friend, acquaintance perhaps.

Nutz
01-07-2016, 04:58 PM
Unless of course it was family, friend, acquaintance perhaps.Perhaps...meant to say dead teaper terrorist...your teaper buddy caught me off guard byy talking about my dead mother. I hope I get to meet him one day..he is a typical teaper pussy hiding behind a keyboard.

Chris
01-07-2016, 04:59 PM
are we still discussing your mother...as i remember not quite that impressive son...


Most corpses aren'T too impressive. Nonetheless, as long as we are talking about bitches...how are you.


Is it typical for dumbass teapers to talk about family on this forum...say something about my dead mother to my face and I will gladly fuck you up.



Let's stop the insults and discuss the topic civilly, or find one you can.

Nutz
01-07-2016, 05:00 PM
Let's stop the insults and discuss the topic civilly, or find one you can.Don't chide me when your teaper buddy talked shit about my dead mother. I guess he hides behind mods too. What a pussy.


TBed for arguing with moderation.

Nutz
01-07-2016, 05:03 PM
Typical teapers, threatening dead people and old ladies. What a punk.

Subdermal
01-07-2016, 06:04 PM
Maybe they are more concerned with raising awareness of this issue than they are with how they are personally viewed by the public. And how have they not been peaceful? They haven't harmed anyone. And they didn't destroy any property as far as I'm aware. They may be armed and saying belligerent things, but those are both protected under the first and second amendments.

In fact - as a testament to their character - it is being reported that the Refuge building and surroundings has never looked more kept.

By their fruits will ye know them.

Subdermal
01-07-2016, 06:07 PM
You are so incredibly wrong, it is ridiculous. Once again...I ask you to review the state constitutions of the Western states. The land was GIVEN to the federal government via the state constitutions.

So, now that you have been educated...do you still hate the constitution and America? I mean...the original intent has been followed.

Land cannot be given to a governmental body which is Constitutionally prohibited from owning it.

Chris
01-07-2016, 06:08 PM
lol...I am not left wing. Nice effort though. Next time, just ask instead of applying a label on someone that you don't know.

Rightwing PC? OK.

Common Sense
01-07-2016, 06:09 PM
Rightwing PC? OK.

You can't respond to a person who has been banned from a thread.

You should know that.

Subdermal
01-07-2016, 06:10 PM
Is it typical for dumbass teapers to talk about family on this forum...say something about my dead mother to my face and I will gladly $#@! you up.

:biglaugh:

Who is this imbecile?

:biglaugh:

MisterVeritis
01-07-2016, 06:23 PM
:biglaugh:

Who is this imbecile?

:biglaugh:
All we know with certainty is that he is Nutz.

Truth Detector
01-07-2016, 06:27 PM
I've explained it a number of times. If you occupy a building with weapons and declare your preparedness to die to stay there, you are not being peaceful.

So speech is an act of violence??? Or is merely having a weapon violent?

Chris
01-07-2016, 06:28 PM
You can't respond to a person who has been banned from a thread.

You should know that.

Why not? No rule about that.

GRUMPY
01-07-2016, 06:43 PM
Don't chide me when your teaper buddy talked $#@! about my dead mother. I guess he hides behind mods too. What a $#@!.


TBed for arguing with moderation.

i support you completely in your efforts to moderate this child, he is totally out of control...give it to him, get peter to put it to him good, wait that may just further incentivize him...anyway, send him to his room, no dessert...he has impugned my honor...when i knew the lassie she was most admittedly a two bagger but was yet alive and...where was i, disturbed by the memory, yes well she was alive and i left her a bag of eukanuba on the night stand, nothing but the good stuff to show my appreciation...and now on with a civil discourse regarding the righteous occupation of lands illegally claimed by feds and the pinheads who kneel at their alter, when of course not busying themselves kneeling elsewhere...

Common Sense
01-07-2016, 06:45 PM
Why not? No rule about that.

Come on....

Chris
01-07-2016, 07:07 PM
i support you completely in your efforts to moderate this child, he is totally out of control...give it to him, get peter to put it to him good, wait that may just further incentivize him...anyway, send him to his room, no dessert...he has impugned my honor...when i knew the lassie she was most admittedly a two bagger but was yet alive and...where was i, disturbed by the memory, yes well she was alive and i left her a bag of eukanuba on the night stand, nothing but the good stuff to show my appreciation...and now on with a civil discourse regarding the righteous occupation of lands illegally claimed by feds and the pinheads who kneel at their alter, when of course not busying themselves kneeling elsewhere...

You were warned as well, so knock it off.

ADMIN
01-07-2016, 07:09 PM
Temporarily closing thread.

Chris
01-07-2016, 08:00 PM
Re-opening. Generally there's no rule about responding to TBed members, and wasn't paying especial attention what thread and member I was responding to. But since I was the mod who TBed I should have paid more attention and not responded. My apology.

Ethereal
01-07-2016, 08:15 PM
I'll respond to him.

He calls me a terrorist and associates me with a head-chopping murderer even though I never said anything even remotely insulting towards him, yet he becomes a victim-complex-having cry baby when someone insults him.

What's with these people who can dish it but cannot take it?

Anyway, back to the thread topic!

Green Arrow
01-07-2016, 08:30 PM
So speech is an act of violence??? Or is merely having a weapon violent?

Try reading my post out loud. As many times as it takes for comprehension to bloom.

Chris
01-09-2016, 01:01 PM
Interesting read on the history of federal lands out west: How The Feds Got All That Western Land (and Why It's a Problem) (https://mises.org/blog/how-feds-got-all-western-land-and-why-its-problem)

From its origins...


The troubles initially began with the Louisiana Purchase which established the federal government as the direct administrator of immense amounts of non-state land. However, the ideological justification for permanent federal ownership really began to gain influence by the late 19th century as many Americans, including influential economists of the time, began to adopt ideologies that saw centralized government as necessary for regulating the economy.

And other factors...


But ideology was just one factor. The widespread nature of federal lands can also be attributed to mere administrative, historical, and geographic accidents that led to an expansion of federal land ownership well beyond what anyone had expected.

To the Homestead Act...


The homestead act is often romanticized and praised by free-market types, but it should not be. The Homestead program was, ultimately, a federal land redistribution scheme, and it worked about as well as anyone skeptical of federal competence might expect. It also further expanded the role of the federal government.

To open grazing...


As it became clear that it was impossible to impose the eastern settlement model on the west, politicians and activists continued to cling to the idea that land ownership should still consist of only small parcels, even when such a plan made no sense at all in arid lands with sparse grass.

As a Plan B, the feds began to encourage the use of "open range" and the idea of public lands in which large numbers of small landowners would share water and grazing resources.

Eventually, neither the government nor the settlers wanted these lands to be privatized.

...which rangers want to keep to keep leases rather than compete for them if turned over to states.

The recommendation...


Ultimately, however, its the democracy of the marketplace that is best suited to determine how lands should be used in the west.