Moron Wildlife Occupied Arrested

[pt0217]

Expresso,

If you can defend the actions of those in Ferguson and Baltimore and denounce the actions of the Oregon group you are clearly biased. The protest in Oregon was peaceful. The 1% rs the Baltimore rioters and Ferguson were largely made up of Anarchists who had no regards for others. They destroyed everything around them. The fact that the law sat back and allowed it was because their politician bosses told them to.

[EspressoBuzz]

Expresso,

If you can defend the actions of those in Ferguson and Baltimore and denounce the actions of the Oregon group you are clearly biased. The protest in Oregon was peaceful. The 1% rs the Baltimore rioters and Ferguson were largely made up of Anarchists who had no regards for others. They destroyed everything around them. The fact that the law sat back and allowed it was because their politician bosses told them to.

 

I didn't defend them. READ CAREFULLY I stated it was an unfair comparison. Ferguson and Baltimore are unfair comparisons for a whole list of things not the least of which is the reasons. It is fairer to compare it to the OJ riots since both are cause by verdict not accepted by a group. With Blacks in LA it was OJ in Oregon it was the sentencing of the ranchers. Either way I don't agree with the violence or destruction of property. Yes I am biased, I don't believe those ranchers occupying are patriots at all. I see them as expressing the worse selfish parts of our society where they deem themselves as the only ones capable of land stewardship and governing. Every time people are left unsupervised the worst happens (please don't make me list em).

 

Frankly I am tired of those who wrap themselves in the American Flag and say they support the Constitution while hating the Gov't.

Edited February 2, 2016 by EspressoBuzz

[pt0217]

The Government in many cases is the problem. The Constitution itself is anti government

[EspressoBuzz]

The Constitution is NOT anti-government. This is a common thread among the anti-government people. In truth it is a pro balanced government. How can a document that outlines the operation and conduct of a government be anti-government? This reagan-esq notion that the private sector can do things better than the government can is total BS, both are EQUALLY ADEPT at doing things wrong and correct. The difference is the private sector is motivated by profit and the gov't on behalf of the people. Where is the support for the constitution when 51 percent of the people want something and the other side can't accept that?

 

Here is one for you,

 

Section. 8.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

 

Including grazing fees which Clive Bundy and their supposed Constitution supporters say they do not recognize. Do you really believe this is anything more than money and fife-dom motivated?

Edited February 2, 2016 by EspressoBuzz

[ants]

 

Only the White Right can take over a federal building with weapons and threaten violence and not be approached or even surrounded for 3 weeks and you honestly want to equate it with rock throwing and Wall Street protesters who were liberally seasoned with pepper spray while peacefully being handcuffed?? Burning federal land, putting hunter hikers and firemen at danger don't register huh? DOMESTIC TERRORISM but no blip on your radar.

Do you think the fact that these guys are in the middle of no where and took over an unoccupied building, has anything to do with the fact that they were not approached or even surrounded ???  

[pt0217]

It is Anti-federal government.

You might not agree with that but that is the way this country was designed to be run. You obviously don't like that. Ok! There's millions like you in this country. That's why our country is a mess right now.

[EspressoBuzz]

Do you think the fact that these guys are in the middle of no where and took over an unoccupied building, has anything to do with the fact that they were not approached or even surrounded ???  

 

Armed militants take over a federal building, why should where make a difference? People were still kept from work, everything is the same as other occupy protest EXCEPT these people came armed and threatened violence.

 

Let me say again, THREATENED VIOLENCE from the beginning, so why the kid gloves? I'm not saying they should have stormed the place or anything like that but to not create a perimeter and then allow women and children to enter and others to come and go as they pleased just goes against every law enforcement principle I have seen before. Oh! and the building wasn't unoccupied as in a unused building, they were off for the New Years Eve Holiday, It would have been occupied if they came one day later.

Edited February 2, 2016 by EspressoBuzz

[Uptown Redneck]

EspressoBuzz, you cannot speak rationally to most here, the are blinded by their hatred of the government and their paranoid delusions feed their fears that the government won't stop until either everyone is either dead or enslaved. Rational conservation does not work with these people because their hatred does not allow for them to accept any views/ideas that do not further their hate filled anti-government agendas.

[bubba]

Oh uptown, you are so wrong. You need to speak rationally to start with. Your topic for this thread told exactly how you feel. You have a typical liberal attitude. You know what we all need and when we do not agree, we are to use your word moron. Where is the rational in that?

[pt0217]

EspressoBuzz, you cannot speak rationally to most here, the are blinded by their hatred of the government and their paranoid delusions feed their fears that the government won't stop until either everyone is either dead or enslaved. Rational conservation does not work with these people because their hatred does not allow for them to accept any views/ideas that do not further their hate filled anti-government agendas.

Wow Uptown! You like to use the word hatred!

You have misrepresented many of the conservative positions speaking on this post. Just because we challenge our government doesn't make us haters. The founding fathers insisted that from us so that all of their sacrifices weren't for nothing.

[Mr VJP]

[ants]

Armed militants take over a federal building, why should where make a difference? People were still kept from work, everything is the same as other occupy protest EXCEPT these people came armed and threatened violence.

 

Let me say again, THREATENED VIOLENCE from the beginning, so why the kid gloves? I'm not saying they should have stormed the place or anything like that but to not create a perimeter and then allow women and children to enter and others to come and go as they pleased just goes against every law enforcement principle I have seen before. Oh! and the building wasn't unoccupied as in a unused building, they were off for the New Years Eve Holiday, It would have been occupied if they came one day later.

OK..so the building was unoccupied….so you agree. They "threatened violence" but again they are in the middle of nowhere..violence against who??,,, those who would have "stormed the place"? Why do that?? ...Let them freaking sit there, and sit there until it gets too old for them. Again... they're in the middle of nowhere...

Do you think that the place would have been stormed if these guys weren't white?? Is that what your saying??

Edited February 2, 2016 by ants

[ants]

EspressoBuzz, you cannot speak rationally to most here, the are blinded by their hatred of the government and their paranoid delusions feed their fears that the government won't stop until either everyone is either dead or enslaved. Rational conservation does not work with these people because their hatred does not allow for them to accept any views/ideas that do not further their hate filled anti-government agendas.

Pot……Meet kettle

[pt0217]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/law-enforcement-accused-of-cover-up-in-shooting-of-oregon-occupier/ar-BBp2sDa?ocid=ansmsnnews11

This is off Aol. I don't believe they are a right wing news source.

If there is better video and audio of the incident then why would authorities only release the helicopter video be released. It creates more questions then answers. Assuming they were justified in this shooting either release all of the video you can or you shouldn't have released any.

[The_Field_Ager]

The Truth Behind The Gov't Land Grab

 

Some fascinating insights into the federal destruction and mismanagement of land by a former logger and councilman. 

 

Edited February 3, 2016 by Papist

[Curmudgeon]

[The_Field_Ager]

Capture.PNG

 

As you have said C, we mustn't let the pesky facts ruin our Statist love-fest. Once again, you are the exemplar of that policy.

Edited February 3, 2016 by Papist

[EspressoBuzz]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/law-enforcement-accused-of-cover-up-in-shooting-of-oregon-occupier/ar-BBp2sDa?ocid=ansmsnnews11

This is off Aol. I don't believe they are a right wing news source.

If there is better video and audio of the incident then why would authorities only release the helicopter video be released. It creates more questions then answers. Assuming they were justified in this shooting either release all of the video you can or you shouldn't have released any.

 

 

At the three min mark this video i posted earlier shows an interview with one of militiamen who was arrested in the same pinch that LaVoy Finicum was killed in. He flat out says the girl Cox is wrong. They generally don't release video at all but the danger of Levoy Finicum becoming a martyr and controversy over the hand up issue forced their hand I suppose. But here again people would rather believe that there is a conspiracy in spite of the fact he said he wouldn't be taken alive, tried to run a road block, nearly ran over a FBI agent. I'm done with this subject, if people don't realize how differently they have been handled from any other group that would have done the same thing then I'm sure those people are part of the problem and have no solution to offer.

[pt0217]

At the three min mark this video i posted earlier shows an interview with one of militiamen who was arrested in the same pinch that LaVoy Finicum was killed in. He flat out says the girl Cox is wrong. They generally don't release video at all but the danger of Levoy Finicum becoming a martyr and controversy over the hand up issue forced their hand I suppose. But here again people would rather believe that there is a conspiracy in spite of the fact he said he wouldn't be taken alive, tried to run a road block, nearly ran over a FBI agent. I'm done with this subject, if people don't realize how differently they have been handled from any other group that would have done the same thing then I'm sure those people are part of the problem and have no solution to offer.

I watched your video. I now understand why you see it the way you do. I'm glad your done contributing to this discussion. Thanks for everything you brought to it.

[ants]

 

if people don't realize how differently they have been handled from any other group that would have done the same thing then I'm sure those people are part of the problem and have no solution to offer.

Give an example of another group that took over a small empty Federal building in the middle of nowhere, and how differently that situation was handled.

[wildcat junkie]

The establishment of the State of Oregon constituted a release of territorial control by the Federal government.

 

 

Please cite the language that specifies that.

 

 

 

Article 1, section 8, paragraph 17.

 

 

Let's have a look at the language cited above shall we?

 

Section 8.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

 

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

 

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

 

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

 

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

 

To establish post offices and post roads;

 

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

 

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

 

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

 

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

 

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

 

To provide and maintain a navy;

 

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

 

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

 

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And

 

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

 

Where does that particular clause specify that all lands must be ceded to the state upon the achievement of statehood?

 

Since many here are always trumpeting the "intent" of language written in The Constitution, lets see whatbthe intent of this clause was.

 

 

Annotation 43 - Article I

 

  Clause 17. District of Columbia; Federal Property

  SEAT OF THE GOVERNMENT

 

The Convention was moved to provide for the creation of a site in which to locate the Capital of the Nation, completely removed from the control of any State, because of the humiliation suffered by the Continental Congress on June 21, 1783. Some eighty soldiers, unpaid and weary, marched on the Congress sitting in Philadelphia, physically threatened and verbally abused the members, and caused the Congress to flee the City when neither municipal nor state authorities would take action to protect the members. 1590 Thus, Madison noted that ''[t]he indispensable necessity of complete authority at the seat of government, carries its own evidence with it. . . . Without it, not only the public authority might be insulted and its proceedings interrupted with impunity, but a dependence of the members of the general government on the State comprehending the seat of government, for protection in the exercise of their duty, might bring on the national council an imputa tion of awe or influence, equally dishonorable to the government and dissatisfactory to the other members of the confederacy.'' 1591

 

The actual site was selected by compromise, Northerners accepting the Southern-favored site on the Potomac in return for Southern support for a Northern aspiration, assumption of Revolutionary War debts by the National Government. 1592 Maryland and Virginia both authorized the cession of territory 1593 and Congress accepted. 1594 Congress divided the District into two counties, Washington and Alexandria, and provided that the local laws of the two States should continue in effect. 1595 It also established a circuit court and provided for the appointment of judicial and law enforcement officials.

 

 

Given that the intent of the clause was the establishment of a sovereign district for the seat of the U S government, how does that preclude the federal government owning land?

 

 

But while researching this article I made some interesting discoveries regarding the "intent" of the "militia".

 

Let's have a look at clauses 15 & 16.

 

 

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

 

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

 

Seems like the "intent" of the founding fathers was for the "militia" to be "called forth by the federal government to repel insurrection".

 

Now, please cite language in The Constitution that specifies that all land must be ceded to the state upon said state being granted statehood

 

Edited February 4, 2016 by wildcat junkie

[pt0217]

Wildcat, the provision gives authority to the federal government to use the militia and govern how it used for its needs at the time it needs it. Not to control the militia.

[pt0217]

It also gives them the authority to own land but it sets its own limits to "needful" and includes examples.

It doesn't give any examples of what's going on in the western states. How would you explain the land grabs as "needful"

[diplomat019]

This is all teddy roosevelts fault. Conservationist my ass!

[wildcat junkie]

It also gives them the authority to own land but it sets its own limits to "needful" and includes examples.

It doesn't give any examples of what's going on in the western states. How would you explain the land grabs as "needful"

 

It pertains to a 10 mile square to be designated as the seat of the Federal government and lands "PURCHASED from the states.

 

AGAIN, somebody cite LANGUAGE IN THE CONSTITUTION where it states that all lands held by the federal government must be ceded to the state upon statehood.

 

Edited February 4, 2016 by wildcat junkie