In The News Today...

Quote: terapined

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_RANCHING_STANDOFF?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Armed protestors?
How about terrorists
You illegally take over a building with guns.
Student protestors did this all the time without guns
These are terrorists, terrorizing people with guns to Illegally take over a building.
Can you imagine the outrage at Fox if these armed terrorists were Black or Muslim
What do they want, the land we stole from the Indians?

F#$% the feds. Granted, I've only seen one script on this subject, one that went way, WAY back and sort of chronologically set the stage all the way up today. After reading that, and assuming it was properly written and not a spin piece, I only wish I was there to take part. All I can say is "It's about goddamned time'. I can only hope it starts a trend.

Quote: Face

F#$% the feds. Granted, I've only seen one script on this subject, one that went way, WAY back and sort of chronologically set the stage all the way up today. After reading that, and assuming it was properly written and not a spin piece, I only wish I was there to take part. All I can say is "It's about goddamned time'. I can only hope it starts a trend.

+1

Of course they have guns, they have seen Waco and know the Feds play for keeps. Feds should go protect the border.

Quote: Face

F#$% the feds. Granted, I've only seen one script on this subject, one that went way, WAY back and sort of chronologically set the stage all the way up today. After reading that, and assuming it was properly written and not a spin piece, I only wish I was there to take part. All I can say is "It's about goddamned time'. I can only hope it starts a trend.

Hammonds torched about 130 acres of public land in an attempt to cover up the poaching of deer on federal property
They went to trial
They were found guilty
The Hammonds do not support the protestors

The protestors have no standing in the Hammond case

"A legal team for the Hammonds insisted in a statement released Monday that Dwight and Steve “respect the rule of law.”
They have litigated this matter within the federal courts for over five years and, in every instance, have followed the order of the court without incident or violation. That includes serving the entire sentences imposed in this case by the judge who heard the evidence at trial and who concluded that imposition of a five-year sentence under these circumstances would ‘shock the conscience,’” read the statement."

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/01/04/rancher-family-reports-to-prison-does-not-endorse-oregon-siege.html?intcmp=hplnws

We have a court system
If you lose in court. oh well.
Don't like the laws.
Change the laws. Get the support of the people to get the proper people in power to change the laws.
In the end we have a system in place.
If the majority of the people agree with you, the laws can be changed
If the majority don't agree with you, oh well.
You don't play crybaby like these clowns in Oregon.

Can you imagine foxnews reaction if these were blacks or Muslims.
Lets stop being politically correct
Terrorists in Oregon

Ben Carson "we need to use the regular channels for dealing with problems that are occurring"
Marco Rubio "You’ve got to follow the law. You can’t be lawless. We live in a republic."
Ted Cruz ""Every one of us has a constitutional right to protest, to speak our minds, but we don’t have a constitutional right to use force and violence and to threaten force and violence on others, And so it is our hope that the protesters there will stand down peaceably, that there will not be a violent confrontation,"

Quote: terapined

Hammonds torched about 130 acres of public land in an attempt to cover up the poaching of deer on federal property
They went to trial
They were found guilty
The Hammonds do not support the protestors

The protestors have no standing in the Hammond case

I've been all fired up for a debate today, hoping you (or anyone) was going to reply. But first, it seems we need some actual facts.

The arrest incident you provide isn't close to the version I read. Said version stated that two fires were set. Once was because there was a wildfire and the Hammonds created a burn line as a means to protect their ranch. Indeed, 1XX acres of a wildlife refuge's grasslands went up with it, but it was successful. It was even reported that not only did it save their ranch, it wound up stopping the fire entirely. The other was productive in nature; burned land is more fertile. There was no mention of poaching, no charges of poaching, no investigation of poaching, nor even a mention of any other activities in the blurb I read. It did say they were found guilty of burning the public land, they were convicted, and each served out their full terms.

The blurb I read also went back well into the 1800's and described a persecution of these people as .gov wished to obtain the lands they owned. It was painted as basically a bully session, haranguing them until they gave up. It described several events involving the Bureau of Land Management and Fish and Wildlife Services, none of which were proper or supportable. It certain was part of my "f#$% the feds" statement.

Now I just read the link you supplied, and it is clear we are just very different people. I'll of course let you respond, but it appears to me that if an "authority", in this case, .gov, says something, you just take it to the bank. This blurb shows charges over the course of 25 years... doesn't that ring of persecution to you? All these charges and the only one that stuck was the one they admitted to, a "crime" that A) provided fertile ground for their livelihood, and B) saved millions if not billions of dollars in damage, including their entire ranch. .gov blocked their cattle, .gov blocked their water, it said so in my blurb and it refers to it in this one.

Whether the Hammonds support Bundy is immaterial. You've never asked me for anything, but if I saw you getting stomped in the street, I'd open a can of whoop ass just the same. And if the stomper was someone I already had run ins with before, doubly so. Seems Mr Bundy wants to be some sort of hero, or maybe a martyr. Either way, I'd say he's fighting the good fight. .gov is not my lord and savior, not my king, not my dad. It is there to manage services necessary for civilized life, and that is it. Bullying ranchers so they may add a bit to a wildlife refuge is not within their purview, it's an attack. And it's about goddamned time someone is pushing back.

I witnessed something similar right in my own backyard. The Rt 219 extension in Springville. Already the most laughable project in these parts due to its inefficiency and waste, they spent some million dollar a foot... just to skip this sleepy town with no traffic. This massive money pit literally went less than 5 more miles. They tried to use Eminent Domain (Compulsory Purchase, in case TheCesspit is reading) to force an old lady out of her house to make room for this thruway. She refused. They offered money, she refused. The tried ED, she refused. Know what they did? They moved it just below her, and the resulting excavation caused her whole house to slide down the hill in pieces. The house her husband built some 50 years ago. That's .gov, and to my admittedly biased eye, that's what I see in Oregon.

Quote: Face

I've been all fired up for a debate today, hoping you (or anyone) was going to reply. But first, it seems we need some actual facts.

Quote:

It described several events involving the Bureau of Land Management and Fish and Wildlife Services, none of which were proper or supportable. It certain was part of my "f#$% the feds" statement.

I am paying no never mind to the Oregonians, sounds like the ranchers did the right thing, and fish and game is being their typical self.

But I wanted to share a thought about Bundy, since you brought him up. I live near Mesquite and have been at the site of the stand off plenty of times. I am glad those supporters didn't get offed by the feds. That part was pretty cool.

But on Bundy's cows...Look out across these desert vista's and to the unknowing eye you would think there is no life out there. Not true, just the opposite.
But it takes a lot of acres to feed a cow here and they are always thirsty, shitting and peeing in any little water that is out here. Makes it nasty down stream.
Loosely for every 500lb. cow that is free ranging, that displaces 3 170 pound deer. Or Rocky Mountain sheep, or Antelope or a lot of other stuff.

The fee for each "free cow" is around 10usd, per year, per cow, which I think Bundy was behind something like 300k. Not because he doesn't have any money, but because of some "right", apparently some right which many of us don't have, including my right to be able to hunt deer, antelope, and sheep. Cows are a destructive bunch. I will guess each cow eats around one and a half tons of grass each year [very conservative]. When each of these stupid cows goes wandering around looking for that ton and a half of grass, they kill tons of flora, tons and tons of habitat for tortoise's, and lizards and rabbits and every other critter that feeds on them like snake's and raptors and bobcats and mountain lions. And...coyote watches it all and shakes his head. An amazing amount of flowering succulents which was home to myriad other animals, destroyed.

On top of .gov wanting to remove Bundy, they turn around and with much PC, the very same gov, PROTECTS wild horses. Those sob's run twenty miles a day, for no reason at all, just to run, stomping on all manner of critters and plants. You can't even hunt the bastards. If they want to support free enterprise let some hunters go out and shoot horses and export them to France where they love the stuff, but they are growing legion . They don't belong here any more than Bundy's cows. But they are protected, how stupid. And somebody turned burro's loose a hundred or so years ago and fish and game here has to build miles and miles of fence to protect drivers. They are another insane creature that must sneak up to the road before charging across it. Fish and game had a donkey round up last year [at great expense, by the time you factor in the chopper] and find a home for 70 of the plant destroying hwy. charging burro's.

Factoid: You know how Alaskans find moose in the summer? They drive the hwy. until they come across a tourist that is stopped in the middle of the road taking pictures, and look off to the side. Usually a cow/calf pair.

So Bundy and others want to protect "open range". Do you know how that works? That means that at one end of a hwy. they put up a little yellow sign that says open range. The sign usually has a few bullet holes through it, and you just whizz right on by. Other end of the hwy, a similar bullet riddled sign. But in between those signs, cows have the "right of way". That means if you are speeding along in the desert and at two in the morning you hit a cow for any reason, it is your fault. It not only destroys your vehicle, you have to pay the rancher for his cow. And not just any cow. For some unknown reason any time a cow is hit, it is his finest cow, which also has sentimental value.

If for some lucky reason after hitting this earth destroying, tortoise killing, grass burning machine, you are still able to drive your vehicle away from the scene, a mile later you will inevitably hit one of those "protected" horses, there is a good chance, that vehicle is done for. Kaput, finished, totaled, and you still pay for the friggin cow. So it is hard for me to support all the free range Bundy's out there, that are 300k behind in assessments @ ten dollars per cow per year. Hunting is by permit only and not available for most hunters so people like him can make money, not paying for feeding his cows.

Loosely, say he has cow/calf pair out there eating the desert and crapping in the little free running water available. At two years that calf is 600lbs. Say it sells for .75 per lb at auction. He makes a little less than 500 bucks +/_. That's what the "beef" was about, imo. He had many, many cows, I think in the hundreds? So that is thousands of deer and Rocky Mountain sheep that will never be. Coyote is always watching and always hungry.

To displace that amount of feed, other ranchers actually "buy" hay, from....a farmer. j/s

Quote: Face

I've been all fired up for a debate today, hoping you (or anyone) was going to reply. But first, it seems we need some actual facts.

The arrest incident you provide isn't close to the version I read. Said version stated that two fires were set. Once was because there was a wildfire and the Hammonds created a burn line as a means to protect their ranch. Indeed, 1XX acres of a wildlife refuge's grasslands went up with it, but it was successful. It was even reported that not only did it save their ranch, it wound up stopping the fire entirely. The other was productive in nature; burned land is more fertile. There was no mention of poaching, no charges of poaching, no investigation of poaching, nor even a mention of any other activities in the blurb I read. It did say they were found guilty of burning the public land, they were convicted, and each served out their full terms.

The blurb I read also went back well into the 1800's and described a persecution of these people as .gov wished to obtain the lands they owned. It was painted as basically a bully session, haranguing them until they gave up. It described several events involving the Bureau of Land Management and Fish and Wildlife Services, none of which were proper or supportable. It certain was part of my "f#$% the feds" statement.

Now I just read the link you supplied, and it is clear we are just very different people. I'll of course let you respond, but it appears to me that if an "authority", in this case, .gov, says something, you just take it to the bank. This blurb shows charges over the course of 25 years... doesn't that ring of persecution to you? All these charges and the only one that stuck was the one they admitted to, a "crime" that A) provided fertile ground for their livelihood, and B) saved millions if not billions of dollars in damage, including their entire ranch. .gov blocked their cattle, .gov blocked their water, it said so in my blurb and it refers to it in this one.

Whether the Hammonds support Bundy is immaterial. You've never asked me for anything, but if I saw you getting stomped in the street, I'd open a can of whoop ass just the same. And if the stomper was someone I already had run ins with before, doubly so. Seems Mr Bundy wants to be some sort of hero, or maybe a martyr. Either way, I'd say he's fighting the good fight. .gov is not my lord and savior, not my king, not my dad. It is there to manage services necessary for civilized life, and that is it. Bullying ranchers so they may add a bit to a wildlife refuge is not within their purview, it's an attack. And it's about goddamned time someone is pushing back.

I witnessed something similar right in my own backyard. The Rt 219 extension in Springville. Already the most laughable project in these parts due to its inefficiency and waste, they spent some million dollar a foot... just to skip this sleepy town with no traffic. This massive money pit literally went less than 5 more miles. They tried to use Eminent Domain (Compulsory Purchase, in case TheCesspit is reading) to force an old lady out of her house to make room for this thruway. She refused. They offered money, she refused. The tried ED, she refused. Know what they did? They moved it just below her, and the resulting excavation caused her whole house to slide down the hill in pieces. The house her husband built some 50 years ago. That's .gov, and to my admittedly biased eye, that's what I see in Oregon.

There is no doubt the govt can be extremely unfair in many situations
What is the recourse?
Guns? Violence?
Or change the unfair laws
Sure its an incredible long grind to change laws but it can be done through peaceful means
People were serving time for pot, those unfair laws are slowly being changed.
Look what Ghandi was up against, the entire British empire and he beat them.
Look what MLK was against. Did he take up guns over matters of injustice that make what happened in Oregon a rose garden romp.
Ghandi and MLK fought for real lasting change in the face of incredible injustice without guns.
These clowns in Oregon are just too lazy to go the system rout, instead take up guns and demand immediate change through terrorism.

Quote: terapined

There is no doubt the govt can be extremely unfair in many situations
What is the recourse?
Guns? Violence?
Or change the unfair laws
Sure its an incredible long grind to change laws but it can be done through peaceful means
People were serving time for pot, those unfair laws are slowly being changed.
Look what Ghandi was up against, the entire British empire and he beat them.
Look what MLK was against. Did he take up guns over matters of injustice that make what happened in Oregon a rose garden romp.
Ghandi and MLK fought for real lasting change in the face of incredible injustice without guns.
These clowns in Oregon are just too lazy to go the system rout, instead take up guns and demand immediate change through terrorism.

Before I dive back into a rebuttal, I will say I mostly agree with you. Bearing arms isn't for every little slight, or even many major ones. In the vast, VAST majority of cases, what you said is more or less how things should be handled.

But now let's get back to this. I am not a farmer nor am I from a farming family, but I grew up on farms nonetheless. I've worked, played, been in and around them my entire childhood. What I'm saying is I'm familiar with the lifestyle, and farming, like time and tides, wait for no man. When I read the things that have been going on there, and I'll admit, I do not know every little detail, but when I read it, I see decades of harassment committed by the feds. Blocking cattle with fences, denying water, these things aren't "inconveniences". It's not like these people work for Geico, got shut down, and can go on UI for a few months. Farming is round the clock work for that one payoff at harvest; if someone f#$%s with your harvest, unless you're a huge factory farm backed by Monsato, your goose is cooked. Very few private farms can withstand losses, and if a resource is suddenly denied, whether from blockage, disaster, whatever, you're in for a world of hurt unless you bust your ass to find a replacement.

To me, that's what .gov was doing. If you know .gov wants the land, .gov was denied the purchase, and suddenly .gov starts denying grazing right, denying water rights, charging them with umpteen different things (none except the burn which stuck), I don't know how you can look at it as anything other than strongarming.

That's how I see it, and it's precisely because of that that I support the armed display. Because, you see, guns are the last line of defense. The first is awareness - avoid trouble. The second is posture and poise - don't instigate trouble. Third is communication - talk trouble down. Fourth is physical force - remove the trouble. Fifth and last is deadly force - destroy the trouble. It appears to me they've done the talking, done the poise. They've been to court, they by all accounts I have read have been cooperative. They turned themselves in, they served their time for the one offense committed. Yet still, here comes .gov again with a whole heap of trouble.

.gov... they have guns. They will use them. They have used them. While I hold the opinion that WoV's resident anarchist rudeboyoi is a little misdirected, I do agree with many of his views. Because, you see, .gov can come in and f#$% with you, as they have with the Hammonds. It doesn't matter how minor a thing, either, you follow the trail far enough and there's a gun waiting on the end. For something as simple as failing to use a blinker at an intersection, there's a gun there enforcing it. Go ahead and try it, you'll see. First comes the talking with a notice to appear, then comes the threats of forfeiture of license if you don't pay, then comes the taking of your license, then comes the taking of your freedom. If you keep resisting, guess what? .gov surrounds your house with guns.

Court, picketing, voting, talking, yes, there are many ways to effect change. These guys have been at it for 25 years. That's very close to your entire working life. It is a third of your actual life. Maybe you're pacifist enough to wait it out, maybe you're fine with a statement against .gov becoming your life's work. Not me. Few weeks, couples months, some years, sure. Go the civilized route. 25 years and .gov is still trying to destroy your family and way of life? "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

#Y'allQuada
#Yeehawdists

There's more than a few cases where people have been wrongly convicted of serious crimes like rape and murder, went to jail, where later, things like DNA evidence overturned their case.

Knowing they are innocent with no doubt in their mind, should they have armed themselves and fought to their death with the police/sheriffs assigned to go pick them up?

To me, that's even a more serious wrong than any of this.

Quote: Face

Before I dive back into a rebuttal, I will say I mostly agree with you. Bearing arms isn't for every little slight, or even many major ones. In the vast, VAST majority of cases, what you said is more or less how things should be handled.

But now let's get back to this. I am not a farmer nor am I from a farming family, but I grew up on farms nonetheless. I've worked, played, been in and around them my entire childhood. What I'm saying is I'm familiar with the lifestyle, and farming, like time and tides, wait for no man. When I read the things that have been going on there, and I'll admit, I do not know every little detail, but when I read it, I see decades of harassment committed by the feds. Blocking cattle with fences, denying water, these things aren't "inconveniences". It's not like these people work for Geico, got shut down, and can go on UI for a few months. Farming is round the clock work for that one payoff at harvest; if someone f#$%s with your harvest, unless you're a huge factory farm backed by Monsato, your goose is cooked. Very few private farms can withstand losses, and if a resource is suddenly denied, whether from blockage, disaster, whatever, you're in for a world of hurt unless you bust your ass to find a replacement.

To me, that's what .gov was doing. If you know .gov wants the land, .gov was denied the purchase, and suddenly .gov starts denying grazing right, denying water rights, charging them with umpteen different things (none except the burn which stuck), I don't know how you can look at it as anything other than strongarming.

That's how I see it, and it's precisely because of that that I support the armed display. Because, you see, guns are the last line of defense. The first is awareness - avoid trouble. The second is posture and poise - don't instigate trouble. Third is communication - talk trouble down. Fourth is physical force - remove the trouble. Fifth and last is deadly force - destroy the trouble. It appears to me they've done the talking, done the poise. They've been to court, they by all accounts I have read have been cooperative. They turned themselves in, they served their time for the one offense committed. Yet still, here comes .gov again with a whole heap of trouble.

.gov... they have guns. They will use them. They have used them. While I hold the opinion that WoV's resident anarchist rudeboyoi is a little misdirected, I do agree with many of his views. Because, you see, .gov can come in and f#$% with you, as they have with the Hammonds. It doesn't matter how minor a thing, either, you follow the trail far enough and there's a gun waiting on the end. For something as simple as failing to use a blinker at an intersection, there's a gun there enforcing it. Go ahead and try it, you'll see. First comes the talking with a notice to appear, then comes the threats of forfeiture of license if you don't pay, then comes the taking of your license, then comes the taking of your freedom. If you keep resisting, guess what? .gov surrounds your house with guns.

Court, picketing, voting, talking, yes, there are many ways to effect change. These guys have been at it for 25 years. That's very close to your entire working life. It is a third of your actual life. Maybe you're pacifist enough to wait it out, maybe you're fine with a statement against .gov becoming your life's work. Not me. Few weeks, couples months, some years, sure. Go the civilized route. 25 years and .gov is still trying to destroy your family and way of life? "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

#Y'allQuada
#Yeehawdists

They lost their court case
It was taken all the way up the Supreme Court
You have 4 hard core conservatives on the Supreme Court
That's all it takes to hear a case, 4 votes.
The conservatives on the Supreme Court declined to hear the case.
That speaks volumes

Quote:

Burns, Oregon (CNN)—The leaders of the Burns Paiute tribe have a message for the men and women who have taken over the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge outside Burns, Oregon: "Go home. We don't want you here."

The message came from several tribe members whose ancestors fought and died over portions of that land long before the ranchers and farmers had it, long before the federal government even existed.

The tribe is still fighting over land use but now works with the federal government's Bureau of Land Management to save its archaeological sites.

"We have good relations with the refuge. They protect our cultural rights there," said tribal council Chairwoman Charlotte Rodrique.

Heh.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/06/us/native-tribe-blasts-oregon-takeover/