150 Armed Militia take over Oregon Federal Building

[bones_708]

you like to make up your own facts in your desperate defense of tyranny
I know what you are

What, I'm not a paranoid delusional who has to make stuff up? You are just attacking because you got nothing to say about your little issue that can't be swatted down.

Mind you in this case someone at the BLM maybe overstepping. That's why we have courts. But the precedent is well founded and is older than our country is. If you have a watercourse as a property boundary and it moves then so does the property line.

And another thing when you nutters start whining about every little thing, when everything gets viewed as some govt overreach you turn into the boy who cried wolf. You have showed you have no concept about what you are talking about here and I'm sure you have done so many times so why pay any attention to what you say later? You marginalize yourselves so only the crazies will listen. So you have a little group of nutters that people ignore but you tell each other stories about the evils of big govt.

But you "know what I am". What a crock of shit.

 

[grasshopperglock]

http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/01/post_2.html#incart_big-photo

 

[Vaquero]

Bones, V-max.
Back off a notch, please.

 

[TheDan]

And another thing when you nutters start whining about every little thing, when everything gets viewed as some govt overreach you turn into the boy who cried wolf. You have showed you have no concept about what you are talking about here and I'm sure you have done so many times so why pay any attention to what you say later? You marginalize yourselves so only the crazies will listen. So you have a little group of nutters that people ignore but you tell each other stories about the evils of big govt.

But you "know what I am". What a crock of shit.

Vmax might be a little inelegant in his delivery, but he has a point. In past conversations with you, you've indicated that you're willing to accept some abuse of power in order to maintain certain levels of control over society. That's just your opinion and that's fine. Myself and many others do not accept the abuse of power, and are not willing to trade liberty for security.

Calling people nutters doesn't help make your arguments more reasonable either.

 

[TheDan]

http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/01/post_2.html#incart_big-photo

Releasing the Hammonds to make this kerfuffle go away will not fix the real problem.

 

[vmax]

Bones, V-max.
Back off a notch, please.

10-4

 

[Davetex]

Vmax might be a little inelegant in his delivery, but he has a point. In past conversations with you, you've indicated that you're willing to accept some abuse of power in order to maintain certain levels of control over society. That's just your opinion and that's fine. Myself and many others do not accept the abuse of power, and are not willing to trade liberty for security.

Calling people nutters doesn't help make your arguments more reasonable either.

Thank you Dan, you said what I was thinking.

 

[bones_708]

Vmax might be a little inelegant in his delivery, but he has a point. In past conversations with you, you've indicated that you're willing to accept some abuse of power in order to maintain certain levels of control over society. That's just your opinion and that's fine. Myself and many others do not accept the abuse of power, and are not willing to trade liberty for security.

Calling people nutters doesn't help make your arguments more reasonable either.

Calling people nutters doesn't make my argument worse either. That's an ad hominim argument you make here. A logical fallacy. Even if you were correct, which you are not, and by the way that statement is incredibly offensive and shows a remarkable ignorance on what has been said. It still wouldn't make the legalities of boundary law any different. You have mode no statements at all that indicate any reason for anyone to believe any point you have made. Just trashed me and made some emotional statement, another logical fallacy, that doesn't fit the circumstance.

 

[vmax]

lots of actions have been "legal" over the years. That does not mean they are not morally wrong or have no basis given the foundation of the Constitution
The Declaration of Independance stated that all men were created equal, yet slavery was legal for nearly 100 years after the country was formed.
Would the founders ever contemplated a law, upheld by SCOTUS that forced a citizen to engage in commerce or pay a tax? Yet we have obamacare

The BLM should not exist if you believe in the power of the 10th Amendment
I will resist tyranny as long as I have a breath in me, "legal" tryanny included.

 

[bones_708]

lots of actions have been "legal" over the years. That does not mean they are not morally wrong or have no basis given the foundation of the Constitution
The Declaration of Independance stated that all men were created equal, yet slavery was legal for nearly 100 years after the country was formed.
Would the founders ever contemplated a law, upheld by SCOTUS that forced a citizen to engage in commerce or pay a tax? Yet we have obamacare

The BLM should not exist if you believe in the power of the 10th Amendment
I will resist tyranny as long as I have a breath in me, "legal" tryanny included.

So if it were OK then it would be OK? Again you go on about the Constitution but it seems you are a bit thin on why this is unconstitutional. Heck you say the BLM is unconstitutional but just going on about the 10th doesn't mean anything. Nothing prevents the Feds from owning land so what prevents them from having a dept that manages parts of it. Nothing is what. If a private land owner can take legal action why shouldn't the Feds, The State, County, or City not do so?

Aside from your logical Fallacies, which is basically everything you have said on this subject so far, do you have any legitimate statements to add? Couldn't you at least spend 2 min googling and rip off some arguments that at least fake being on point?

 

[Captain]

The issue is the Constitution and government overreach. Not religious

Sent from my QTAQZ3 using Tapatalk

 

[Phoneguy]

 

[vmax]

I'm thinking of a scene from Blazing Saddles

 

[TheDan]

Calling people nutters doesn't make my argument worse either. That's an ad hominim argument you make here. A logical fallacy. Even if you were correct, which you are not, and by the way that statement is incredibly offensive and shows a remarkable ignorance on what has been said. It still wouldn't make the legalities of boundary law any different. You have mode no statements at all that indicate any reason for anyone to believe any point you have made. Just trashed me and made some emotional statement, another logical fallacy, that doesn't fit the circumstance.

You're upset about an ad hominem attack against you, but you don't see a problem with labeling people nutters?

It's not an ad hominem attack on you in the first place. I acknowledge it's your opinion and I'm fine with that. It helps me better understand your perception of things. If you're curious as to what you've said in the past that makes me perceive you that way then here it is. Most relevant part is bolded.
http://www.texasguntalk.com/forums/news-articles/68430-whole-thing-waller-6.html

Cops can be JBT if that is what they want to be. They have a lot of authority over the public in many situations. You can't have effective cops without that authority and trying to set up a system where they don't have that authority is a disaster waiting to happen. The best we can do is try and prevent abuse and take action when it does happen, which honestly is exceedingly rare. That wasn't the case here AFAIKS. You have an officer who was writing a warning when he could of just ticketed the woman. He responded to her negative attitude and allowed himself to be baited into responding negatively. It seems a bit unprofessional but far from illegal or JBT territory. I figure you Bait a cop you get what you deserve but by responding as he did he gave away control of the situation in a way, and that is a bad thing.

This is why we have government over reach.

Because otherwise it wouldn't be government. You can't prevent the possibility of overreach you punish those who do overreach.

 

[TheDan]

The issue is the Constitution and government overreach. Not religious

Well the problem is that some people believe in the efficacy and importance of government. It's not a religion per se, but it's definitely a faith.

 

[grasshopperglock]

Well the problem is that some people believe in the efficacy and importance of government. It's not a religion per se, but it's definitely a faith.

There's actually study in folks considering federal power as a religion. To put it layman's terms. The federal government is a religion to certain people. The god that's gives. Blindly.


Their higher power. The Fed has the answers. Believe every word. They latch onto the words like it's some kinda scripture.

 

[grasshopperglock]

You'll see this quite frequently. People want to believe in something. Anything.


Then there's the Fed. The awe inspiring maker of money. Dictator of thought.


god on earth, created by man.

 

[Captain]

And mostly the Fed is putting out lies to them and they eat it up like candy. I call it , drinking the cool aid.

sent from a Galaxy far away

 

[grasshopperglock]

Remember the pic of Obama holding a glowing ball during a speech? How about comparisons to Jesus?

A trick and position of photography. Yet a % of people will believe that shit. Eat it up with a table spoon off a dry chunk of wood.

 

[bones_708]

You're upset about an ad hominem attack against you, but you don't see a problem with labeling people nutters?

It's not an ad hominem attack on you in the first place. I acknowledge it's your opinion and I'm fine with that. It helps me better understand your perception of things. If you're curious as to what you've said in the past that makes me perceive you that way then here it is. Most relevant part is bolded.
http://www.texasguntalk.com/forums/news-articles/68430-whole-thing-waller-6.html

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem

It's the definition of an ad hominen argument. Sure I dislike it because it isn't true but that wasn't the point. The point of pointing it out was that you made no comments supporting your position. Your only argument in defense of your position was your comment on me. It was "I support Vmax because you're a Nazi" argument and that is an ad hominen argument. Now if you made a point and then trashed talked me, well at least you would of tried to make a point........

And by the way talk about taking things out of context. My point was not supporting government over reach. It was stating that you can't have effective govt if it is set up so there is no possibility of govt over reach. That we should punish those officials or employees that do over reach not cripple the govt in an effort to prevent over reach.