Moron Wildlife Occupied Arrested

[greg54]

Of course we should learn from mistakes we've made in the past.

There are several people on this site that think that the Bundys and Hammonds are evil. Specifically the person that started this post.

is this the person?

[wildcat junkie]

I agree with Culvercreek. The founders did not want a simple majority rule. Not sure how far back it goes but the senate doesn't pass bills on a simple majority. They must have a 2/3 majority to pass a bill (except Obamacare which was passed with 51 votes).

 

Where did you get that information? It only take as simple majority vote to pass legislation in the Senate.

 

I think you are confusing that with "cloture"

 

Cloture — a process for limiting debate on a measure — is the Senate's only weapon against the filibuster. The details have changed several times since its creation a century ago, but here's the rule as it stands today: cloture is invoked when three-fifths of all sworn-in senators vote for the cloture motion.

[pt0217]

Where did you get that information? It only take as simple majority vote to pass legislation in the Senate.

I think you are confusing that with "cloture"

Cloture — a process for limiting debate on a measure — is the Senate's only weapon against the filibuster. The details have changed several times since its creation a century ago, but here's the rule as it stands today: cloture is invoked when three-fifths of all sworn-in senators vote for the cloture motion.

Here we go! Save it wildcat. I don't need to be schooled by you. I was mistaken and thanked Expresso for pointing it out to me. I have a simple understanding of the rules of legislation. That's why I'm debating on a hunting website.

[bubba]

Just because a simple majority vote passes a bill in the Senate, does not make it law now does it. Checks and balances. Look it up.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

 Constitutional amendments require a supermajority.

they require a 2/3 vote in both houses and that is just to Propose the amendment. It does not go to the POTUS. (Or a Constitutional Convention can be called by the states to propose the amendment) It goes to the states where is requires a 3/4 ratification. (38 out of 50). That is why this process hasn't been used by the left to push their gun agenda. 13 no votes at it would be dead in the water. Much easier to load the Supreme Court

Edited February 12, 2016 by Culvercreek hunt club

[Curmudgeon]

Uh.....you're the one who brought up the subject of people being respectful of the Rule of Law and suffering the consequences for violations.

Do you not see how much damage this administration is doing to our freedoms and the future of this country?  It will be much harder to correct than the damage experienced during the Dust Bowl.

 

This conversation is not about whether this administration is violating the rule of law. Obama can't hold a candle to the crimes of Bush 2, Clinton, Reagan, Nixon, Johnson, Roosevelt, Hoover, and many others.

 

Anyway, the federal policies the militants objected to predate Obama. Obama is not the issue. How to address grievances is the issue.

 

The reason we keep bringing up rule of law is because we want to know if you wingnuts believe in it. Do you find armed confrontation a better solution than the legal process?

 

Edited February 12, 2016 by Curmudgeon

[Culvercreek hunt club]

The reason we keep bringing up rule of law is because we want to know if you wingnuts believe in it. Do you find armed confrontation a better solution than the legal process?

All avenues must be exhausted through the legal process. The stumbling block to that in many cases is when the Govt is the one you  have a grievance with. They have eternally deep pockets (thanks to you and me), while a private citizen doesn't. I definitely don't see it as "better" and doubt I would see it ever come to that in my lifetime but given the wedge that is driven into our society, I could be convinced it is coming in the future. 

[EspressoBuzz]

I guess we will never know how the occupation of the wildlife refuge would have turned out had they decided to air their grievances out in an un-armed sit in of the refuge. Would they have gotten a more even handed treatment in the media and more importantly would more people nationwide have listened instead of dismissing them as violent nutjobs.

 

Oregon standoff ends after 41 days with dramatic surrender

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-oregon-militia-idUSKCN0VK05F

 

[Mr VJP]

The reason we keep bringing up rule of law is because we want to know if you wingnuts believe in it. 

 

It's quite obvious you wingnuts are very selective in your outrage concerning violations of the Rule of Law.  You get real "offended" when your political opposition is guilty of it, then turn around and show nothing but admiration and support when your political favorites are guilty of it.

 

That is the point that needs to be made in this discussion whenever Rule of Law comes up.

 

That's not a belief in it.  That's an uneven application of it.

[ants]

Like I said, just let them sit there, in the middle of nowhere, until it gets old.

[Curmudgeon]

It's quite obvious you wingnuts are very selective in your outrage concerning violations of the Rule of Law.  You get real "offended" when your political opposition is guilty of it, then turn around and show nothing but admiration and support when your political favorites are guilty of it.

 

That is the point that needs to be made in this discussion whenever Rule of Law comes up.

 

That's not a belief in it.  That's an uneven application of it.

 

Please name one instance where I have "shown" any "admiration and support" for violations of the rule of law.

 

You would not tolerate such talk about yourself.

 

Edited February 13, 2016 by Curmudgeon

[bubba]

19 pages of liberrtals drawing us into defending our beliefs with stupid comments. Sounds like Washington. Good play boys

[Mr VJP]

Please name one instance where I have "shown" any "admiration and support" for violations of the rule of law.

 

You would not tolerate such talk about yourself.

 

Support for Obama, Leftists and unconstitutional court decisions constitutes support for violation of the Rule of Law.

 

That post wasn't specifically directed at you.  However, I seem to recall quite a few of your posts regarding the above.

Edited February 13, 2016 by Mr VJP

[Curmudgeon]

Support for Obama, Leftists and unconstitutional court decisions constitutes support for violation of the Rule of Law.

 

That post wasn't specifically directed at you.  However, I seem to recall quite a few of your posts regarding the above.

 

You seem to recall. What hogwash.

 

Papist - Why don't you give him some lessons.

 

[wildcat junkie]

FIELD & STREAM thanks the Bundys for there help furthering the cause of conservation..

 

http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/the-conservationist/sportsmen-owe-the-bundys-a-thank-you

[pt0217]

Wildcat your position is that we should have more public land rather than less. So people will have places to hunt. Also, you believe that the fossil fuel industry, the timber industry, agriculture industry are all bad for our country. With the national debt at 19 trillion dollars and all of these millions of acres only costing taxpayers money to maintain them. Don't you feel there is room to compromise that would help everyone?

[EspressoBuzz]

Wildcat your position is that we should have more public land rather than less. So people will have places to hunt. Also, you believe that the fossil fuel industry, the timber industry, agriculture industry are all bad for our country. With the national debt at 19 trillion dollars and all of these millions of acres only costing taxpayers money to maintain them. Don't you feel there is room to compromise that would help everyone?

 

Industry, properly regulated is good. The history of America as recently as Love Canal has shown that industries cannot be trusted to protect the land. There is a compromise, timber is harvested, minerals extracted, agriculture is allowed, all overseen by a un-perfect but focused Dept of our Government entrusted with protecting the land while allowing such activities. The fact is that this is not enough for some or not perfect enough for others.

 

Also PT while the BLM grazing program loses $125 million annually, and the other depts (timber, mineral extraction, agriculture) lose also, is a political choice our elected officials have made. We could in theory not pay a dime for maintenance and just not allow anything on any federal land or we could raise the fees everyone agrees are lower than they should be and make up the difference. The money spent maintaining the land is actually money spent on maintaining the PROGRAMS that allow and oversee exploitation of the lands.

 

As I have said before the states do not want these lands as it would cost them to administer them, the few states that do want them don't want all of the lands just the places where known resources exist and are protected because of habitat or strategic reasons.

 

Any hunter who has ever dreamed or taken that hunt out west for your dream trophy should be concerned. The Hammonds have been threatening hunters who hunt BLM lands adjacent to theirs. It was a reason for their slaughter of a herd of deer and the fire set to cover it up. These are facts and these people do not support you as a hunter. Arid land out west does not hold the same number of animals as lands in the east, has greater population swings and in some places habitat is quite endangered. At some point you have to ask who really wants these lands and why.

[pt0217]

Fair points made. The Bundys and people like them are not evil people. I believe they have a valid point as well. Somewhere in there, there is room for compromise. The article that wildcat posted simply brands the Bundys and the like, as bad people. Editorial articles like that don't help solve the problem they only divide. Field and Stream should stay out of politics.

[wildcat junkie]

 Field and Stream should stay out of politics.

So, by your rational they shouldn't publish anything that supports the 2nd Amendment either?

 

[pt0217]

Funny. I was thinking the same thing after I posted. No my point is, Field and Stream are taking an editorial position that have labeled the Bundys as the bad guy. They are using that and spinning it into a discussion about conservation. I feel this is disingenuous. This issue is out of their area. It's like they are looking for an angle to justify them to get involved. I think enough people respect the magazine they don't need to alienate those that support the Bundys and others to push for Conservation.

[wildcat junkie]

Funny. I was thinking the same thing after I posted. No my point is, Field and Stream are taking an editorial position that have labeled the Bundys as the bad guy. They are using that and spinning it into a discussion about conservation. I feel this is disingenuous. This issue is out of their area. It's like they are looking for an angle to justify them to get involved. I think enough people respect the magazine they don't need to alienate those that support the Bundys and others to push for Conservation.

 

Read the transcripts of the testimony at the Hammond's trial & tell me they weren't out of control thugs that  did as they damned well pleased & even threatened to frame the BLM if they didn't make the charges "go away".

 

Edited February 17, 2016 by wildcat junkie

[woodchuck]

I will admit I haven't read the transcripts. With that being said, what makes the blm's word any good? There is video out of blm workers laughing about taking people's land. There is alot more to this. Remember the media only reports what they given.

Sent from my SM-T810 using Tapatalk

[pt0217]

I get that you don't like them. No Biggie. Plenty of people don't like plenty of other people. I am going to pass on reading the transcript. My concerns with this whole event have nothing to do with the character of the Hammonds'.

[wildcat junkie]

I will admit I haven't read the transcripts. With that being said, what makes the blm's word any good? There is video out of blm workers laughing about taking people's land. There is alot more to this. Remember the media only reports what they given.

Sent from my SM-T810 using Tapatalk

 

What makes you think that the Hammond's word is any better?

 

Besides, a lot of the testimony was from a 13 year old member of the Hammond family and a guide that had his hunting party endangered by the fire that the Hammond started after they herd shot deer that were left wounded.

[Doewhacker]

Remember the owl that went on the endangered list and shut down a logging industry?

 

That will be next in the west, no more BLM mining deals, no more grazing cattle...nothing.

 

If a rancher was granted owner ship of said lands there would be nothing to stop the destruction of the land. BLM is bad enough but at least the people have a say in what projects they go after.

 

This is why there is a lot of work done to help the Sage Grouse from going endangered (By the BLM), once it does, its lights out for every one.