Jump to content

Wildlife vs. Welfare Ranchers


Recommended Posts

So you think the militarized Gestapo police will allow armed black people to "peacefully" take over government property like those thugs in Oregon?

 

 

"Militarized Gestapo Police" is your term, but if a group of armed black protestors peacefully took over an unoccupied visitor center in the middle of nowhere?  Yes.  It would be handled the same way. Or seeing how they would be on Federal land, do you think the current administration would allow the police to "act stupidly" and charge in, guns blazing??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jesus also taught individual accountability and responsibility. How does that fit into the "moderate" and "Liberal" Christian narrative?

 

So, all liberals and moderates are not accountable and irresponsible? Further proves that conservative is a synonym for narrow minded. If you aren't walking in lock step with narrow minded views your views don't have merit?

 

Again you are cherry picking though.  I guess it helps "conservatives" rationalize the "prosperity gospel".

 

Good thing our founding father were liberal and progressive or we would still be British subjects wouldn't we?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, all liberals and moderates are not accountable and irresponsible? Further proves that conservative is a synonym for narrow minded. If you aren't walking in lock step with narrow minded views your views don't have merit?

 

Again you are cherry picking though.  I guess it helps "conservatives" rationalize the "prosperity gospel".

 

Good thing our founding father were liberal and progressive or we would still be British subjects wouldn't we?

Where did I say all were? You don't believe that many of the tenants of the Left diminish the value of personal responsibility and accountability?

 

And as a side note. I fully believe in charitable giving, but NOT government ordered and with no say in where it goes. Mandated is NOT charity. 

Edited by Culvercreek hunt club
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jesus also taught individual accountability and responsibility. How does that fit into the "moderate" and "Liberal" Christian narrative?

 

 

So, all liberals and moderates are not accountable and irresponsible? Further proves that conservative is a synonym for narrow minded. If you aren't walking in lock step with narrow minded views your views don't have merit?

 

Again you are cherry picking though.  I guess it helps "conservatives" rationalize the "prosperity gospel".

 

Good thing our founding father were liberal and progressive or we would still be British subjects wouldn't we?

 

 

Where did I say all were? You don't believe that many of the tenants of the Left diminish the value of personal responsibility and accountability?

 

Absolutely, on the other hand, you don't believe that many of the tenets of the (so called) "Christian" right egregiously fail to follow the teachings of Jesus?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Absolutely, on the other hand, you don't believe that many of the tenets of the (so called) "Christian" right egregiously fail to follow the teachings of Jesus?

Are you making a statement or asking a question? In order to accurately state what I agree with or don't I would have to respond to a specific. What specifically?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

And as a side note. I fully believe in charitable giving, but NOT government ordered and with no say in where it goes. Mandated is NOT charity. 

 

So, should members of the armed forces & those working over 40 hours a week have to rely on "charity" because their incomes don't amount to enough to survive? Meanwhile we hand out tax breaks to the rich so they can invest in sending  more jobs "offshore" and hide the profits in offshore accounts.

Edited by wildcat junkie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, should members of the armed forces & those working over 40 hours a week have to rely on "charity" because their incomes don't amount to enough to survive? Meanwhile we hand out tax breaks to the rich so they can invest in sending  more jobs "offshore" and hide the profits in offshore accounts. 

In general I am  not in favor of any welfare, corporate or individual. Grants to businesses are a farce. If the concept or product is so great there would be private investment. That goes for even "green energy" concepts as well as subsidized farming. I believe in the market setting the minimum wage for a specific skill.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Here's a "delusional conservative chicken" for you.

 

Ted%20Nugent_zpsffih6gte.jpg

 

Interviewer: How did you get out of the draft?

Ted Nugent: "Ted was a young boy, appearing to be a hippie but quite opposite in fact, working hard and playing hard, playing rock and roll like a deviant. People would question my sanity, I played so much. So I got my notice to be in the draft. Do you think I was gonna lay down my guitar and go play army? Give me a break! I was busy doin' it to it. I had a career Jack. If I was walkin' around, hippying down, getting' loaded and pickin' my ass like your common curs, I'd say "Hey yeah, go in the army. Beats the poop out of scuffin' around in the gutters." But I wasn't a gutter dog. I was a hard workin', mother****in' rock and roll musician.

I got my physical notice 30 days prior to. Well, on that day I ceased cleansing my body. No more brushing my teeth, no more washing my hair, no baths, no soap, no water. Thirty days of debris build. I stopped shavin' and I was 18, had a little scraggly beard, really looked like a hippie. I had long hair, and it started gettin' kinky, matted up. Then two weeks before, I stopped eating any food with nutritional value. I just had chips, Pepsi, beer-stuff I never touched-buttered poop, little jars of Polish sausages, and I'd drink the syrup, I was this side of death, Then a week before, I stopped going to the bathroom. I did it in my pants. poop, piss the whole shot. My pants got crusted up."

 

Edited by wildcat junkie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why don't we get back to the "welfare ranchers" & their "support" of the Hammonds.

 

How many have read the transcript of the testimony at their trials in the PDF link I posted?

For those of you that think that the Hammonds were wrongly imprisoned, perhaps you should read the transcripts of the testimony at their trial contained in their grazing permit rejection.

 

Before you dismiss that as BLM propaganda, bear in mind that some of the testimony was from a member of the Hammond family & a hunting guide that witnesses the Hammonds "herd shooting" deer, wounding some of them as well as the firesthat were set by the Hammonds that nearly engulfed the campsite of the guide & his clients.

 

This is interesting. (this is PDF so you will have to download it) https://www.google.c...5,d.dmo&cad=rja

 

Take the time to read through the testimony that spells out the conduct of the Hammonds that endangered the lives of hunters & guides in the area they set ablaze.( A; pages 5-7) On yet another occasion the endangered the lives of fire fighters.(B; pages 7-14)

 

Of particular interest are the threats made on August 24 2006 (page 14) to BLM officials where Steve Hammond threatened to blame BLM for setting the fires if BLM "didn't make the investigation go away".

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those of you that think that the Hammonds were wrongly imprisoned, perhaps you should read the transcripts of the testimony at their trial contained in their grazing permit rejection.

 

Before you dismiss that as BLM propaganda, bear in mind that some of the testimony was from a member of the Hammond family & a hunting guide that witnesses the Hammonds "herd shooting" deer, wounding some of them as well as the firesthat were set by the Hammonds that nearly engulfed the campsite of the guide & his clients.

 

This is interesting. (this is PDF so you will have to download it) https://www.google.c...5,d.dmo&cad=rja

 

Take the time to read through the testimony that spells out the conduct of the Hammonds that endangered the lives of hunters & guides in the area they set ablaze.( A; pages 5-7) On yet another occasion the endangered the lives of fire fighters.(B; pages 7-14)

 

Of particular interest are the threats made on August 24 2006 (page 14) to BLM officials where Steve Hammond threatened to blame BLM for setting the fires if BLM "didn't make the investigation go away".

Trial? It sounds like you are referencing items that are not under the "guilty" verdict on the summary sheet. 

Edited by Culvercreek hunt club
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Hammonds were arrested, tried, convicted, and served their sentences.

 

After their release the Federal government decided the Hammonds were still a nuisance and had one of their federally-appointed judges re-incarcerate them for that same crime.

Nothing new as far as charges or evidence. No new trial. A Federal judge simply said, "You're going back to jail."

Why the Hammonds would ever agree to that is a mystery and I won't speculate here.

 

 

I disagree with Ammon Bundy's methods in this case but I do believe in the message: The power of the Federal Government has to be kept in check, even if the victims are coerced into believing otherwise.

And no, the Federal Government is not the People. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What if two black men were tried, convicted and served their sentences, and months after they were released it was decided that they needed to serve more time ??

 

wildcat !!   GO!    Since you went off on the whole black-white thing, Im sure you have some thoughts on that.

Edited by ants
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What if two black men were tried, convicted and served their sentences, and months after they were released it was decided that they needed to serve more time ??

 

wildcat !!   GO!    Since you went off on the whole black-white thing, Im sure you have some thoughts on that.

 

 

wildcat…..i hear those crickets you mentioned before.. or should I say EARLIER

Edited by ants
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What if two black men were tried, convicted and served their sentences, and months after they were released it was decided that they needed to serve more time ??

 

wildcat !!   GO!    Since you went off on the whole black-white thing, Im sure you have some thoughts on that.

 

You missed the whole point. (as usual) White, black, christian, Muslim shouldn't matter but it sure seems to.

 

.Being accused of "playing the race card" when discrimination is obvious is like calling someone that points someone out for poaching an anti-hunter.

 

Here is the legal precedent on the matter.

 

Absent a waiver, both the government and the defense have the right to appeal a sentence. Federal prosecutors generally must seek approval from "main Justice" — the Department of Justice in Washington D.C. — before appealing a ruling. That's so the feds don't make what they see as "bad law" by appealing "bad cases," and so the feds' legal stance remains relatively consistent across circuits.

 

The Hammonds were allowed, as they should be, to remain free during the appeal. The government won the appeal so they were returned to jail to serve out their sentences.

 

For one thing, given what the Hammonds did according to the testimony, 5 years is a rather light sentence. Anything less would be little more than a slap on the wrist.

 

If you can't do the crime don't do the time

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You missed the whole point. (as usual) White, black, christian, Muslim shouldn't matter but it sure seems to.

 

.Being accused of "playing the race card" when discrimination is obvious is like calling someone that points someone out for poaching an anti-hunter.

 

Here is the legal precedent on the matter.

 

Absent a waiver, both the government and the defense have the right to appeal a sentence. Federal prosecutors generally must seek approval from "main Justice" — the Department of Justice in Washington D.C. — before appealing a ruling. That's so the feds don't make what they see as "bad law" by appealing "bad cases," and so the feds' legal stance remains relatively consistent across circuits.

 

The Hammonds were allowed, as they should be, to remain free during the appeal. The government won the appeal so they were returned to jail to serve out their sentences.

 

For one thing, given what the Hammonds did according to the testimony, 5 years is a rather light sentence. Anything less would be little more than a slap on the wrist.

 

If you can't do the crime don't do the time

 

OK….so you're saying that if the ranchers were black, the situation would be handled differently. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

wildcat…..i hear those crickets you mentioned before.. or should I say EARLIER

 

 

Your delusion is making you hear things.

 

 

 

WHO SAID THAT???   WHAT???

 

If delusion is any indication of poor hearing… then you are stone deaf.

 

No offense if you really are deaf.

It's also affecting your reading comprehension!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK….so you're saying that if the ranchers were black, the situation would be handled differently. 

 

 

You missed the whole point. (as usual) White, black, christian, Muslim shouldn't matter but it sure seems to.

 

 

You are simply amazing!

 

Better put down that crack pipe!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...