150 Armed Militia take over Oregon Federal Building

[ROGER4314]

Right Wingers on the short wave radio revealed two nights ago that the Feds are putting together a fully equipped trauma center not far from the Federal Building. The lads may soon choose whether they are in it to win it or if they made their point and it's time to go home.

Flash

 

[zincwarrior]

Evidently the hornblowers are getting more antagonistic as well and the local residents are getting tired of the tomfoolery.

 

[grasshopperglock]

http://www.fromthetrenchesworldrepo...gh-native-american-artifacts-at-refuge/151777

 

[TheDan]

http://www.fromthetrenchesworldrepo...gh-native-american-artifacts-at-refuge/151777

um ok... I was all ready to be upset for the Paiute's, but...

LaVoy Finicum, one of the leaders of the armed protesters occupying the Malheur national wildlife refuge, posted a video of himself inside a government building looking through cardboard boxes of papers and other items associated with the local tribe – and inviting Paiute leaders to meet with the militia and reclaim their belongings. “We want to make sure these things are returned to their rightful owner,” said Finicum

How is this being disrespectful? I don't keep things that are special to me in cardboard boxes. Seems like the people managing the wildlife refuge had been disrespecting their stuff.

 

[zincwarrior]

um ok... I was all ready to be upset for the Paiute's, but...
How is this being disrespectful? I don't keep things that are special to me in cardboard boxes. Seems like the people managing the wildlife refuge had been disrespecting their stuff.

I imagine to the paiute's them just being on paiute land is disrespectful.

 

[grasshopperglock]

https://www.intellihub.com/two-u-s-...ld-oaths-say-other-in-corps-will-do-the-same/


Notice the title on the video.

 

[grasshopperglock]

Governor trigger


http://www.fromthetrenchesworldrepo...for-swift-action-against-bundy-militia/151829

 

[zincwarrior]

And the governor is right.

 

[Whistler]

Zinc, why are you so completely enamored and trusting of government? Every discussion that comes up you immediately take the side of government, label dissenters and protesters as terrorists or traitors and generally support any authoritarian position. I'm not insulting you (or that's not my intent, folks are pretty easily offended these days) I'm just genuinely curious as you are steadfast in your commitment to that position and tend to be dismissive and demeaning when challenged, from which I infer it's very important to you or deeply ingrained. If you don't know that's fine, just an observation and curiosity.

Sorry OP for the sidetrack, inquiring minds and all that

 

[Stukaman]

He's a FED plant lol

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

 

[zincwarrior]

Zinc, why are you so completely enamored and trusting of government?

I'm not. This has nothing to do with government. I fully support the actual protesters who went and protested/marched peacefully and lawfully. But the ones who took over the office are not protesters. They are committing felonies and threatening townspeople. Thats no different than BLM or the New Black Panthers taking over a place and threatening everyone. I'm just being fair.

He's a FED plant lol

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

Don't blow my cover. I get free cookies at the monthly meeting. And those cookies are filled with government goodness.

 

[Whistler]

I'm not. This has nothing to do with government. I fully support the actual protesters who went and protested/marched peacefully and lawfully. But the ones who took over the office are not protesters. They are committing felonies and threatening townspeople. Thats no different than BLM or the New Black Panthers taking over a place and threatening everyone. I'm just being fair.


Don't blow my cover. I get free cookies at the monthly meeting. And those cookies are filled with government goodness.

Fair enough. Don't totally agree but I'm sure we'll get plenty of opportunities to discuss our differing view points. Thanks for responding, I really was just curious what events or life experience formed your perspective on such things, e.g. our discussion re; the War of Northern Aggression.

On topic I think sometimes you have to take stronger steps than an easily dismissed/ignored protest, for the most part government could give two shits if you organize a march. Of course they'll make all the expected noises to "prove" they do care. Reminds me of BC's thread regarding "moral arousal" versus "moral outrage" or the line from Roadhouse "I want you to be nice until it's time to not be nice". I think there is a significant difference between pursuing an agenda and resisting tyranny but that presupposes perceived tyranny. Jelly or jam, they're not the same.

 

[zincwarrior]

On topic I think sometimes you have to take stronger steps than an easily dismissed/ignored protest, for the most part government could give two shits if you organize a march.

Well, I believe in the Bill of Rights and doing what you can...legally. Dats myschtick.

Now where are me government cookies! I've got to fuel up before I infiltrate er compete at the Austin tournament tomorrow.

 

[vmax]

You know that isn't the law right? The Feds were not granted any more land during the creation of the US but they were not limited on the amount of land they could own. Just on what the Feds could separate from the States.

• "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" (Art I, Sect. 8, Clause 17)

There is a difference. The Feds can buy land and build a office or courthouse it just isn't separate and under exclusive control of the Feds.

Then explain the legality of what the sonabitches at BLM are doing in the Red River in Texas

 

[Se7en62]

Then explain the legality of what the sonabitches at BLM are doing in the Red River in Texas

You mean stealing land from ranchers?

 

[vmax]

You mean stealing land from ranchers?

Damn right
I figure some here can tell how the BLM is acting for the general good and within the confines of the law

 

[bones_708]

Then explain the legality of what the sonabitches at BLM are doing in the Red River in Texas

It's a freeking land dispute. Do you have any idea how many thousands of those there have been? It's not like there is no basis for the dispute. When a river moves boundaries change. That has been the law since before we were a country. Now if the BLM can show that the rivers change was because of erosion then it is their land, or should I say it's the public's land. If they fail then it isn't. I don't know how good the case is but the getting all worked up when you don't even know what the dispute is, well it makes me think you either couldn't care less about the truth or don't want to know because then you might not get your bias reaffirmed.

 

[vmax]

It's a freeking land dispute. Do you have any idea how many thousands of those there have been? It's not like there is no basis for the dispute. When a river moves boundaries change. That has been the law since before we were a country. Now if the BLM can show that the rivers change was because of erosion then it is their land, or should I say it's the public's land. If they fail then it isn't. I don't know how good the case is but the getting all worked up when you don't even know what the dispute is, well it makes me think you either couldn't care less about the truth or don't want to know because then you might not get your bias reaffirmed.

Oh so where in the constitution does it say if a land boundary changes due to river erosion the BLM can come into a sovereign state and take that land ?
I swear I must have read right over that part

 

[vmax]

 

[bones_708]

Oh so where in the constitution does it say if a land boundary changes due to river erosion the BLM can come into a sovereign state and take that land ?
I swear I must have read right over that part

What it can only happen if the Constitution says so? You are showing ignorance about property law. BLM manages one side, if the river moves they have an obligation to us, the citizens they manage the land for, to be good stewards and take possession of what legally should be our land. That is if they are correct. That is what courts are for. Just ask Patterson. He has said it's established law they just have to prove their case.