You equate yourself in a routine traffic stop to a large group of people making a public demonstration against government overreach? A story which is covered by the media nationally, if not internationally? Wow and LOL. You have a high opinion of yourself.
You equate yourself in a routine traffic stop to a large group of people making a public demonstration against government overreach? A story which is covered by the media nationally, if not internationally? Wow and LOL. You have a high opinion of yourself.
Public demonstration? LOL.... yeah.. OK. Armed men, plotting against the government, hiding out in a remote building...
As I said, the law is the law. Maybe we should have let LaVoy shoot or run over an officer. Maybe that would make some happy.. you know... stick it to the government!
Public demonstration? LOL.... yeah.. OK. Armed men, plotting against the government, hiding out in a remote building...
As I said, the law is the law. Maybe we should have let LaVoy shoot or run over an officer. Maybe that would make some happy.. you know... stick it to the government!
Yep, law is law. Shoot everyone who supported such actions...
Yep, law is law. Shoot everyone who supported such actions...
So... I guess you believe we should only follow the law when want too.... otherwise, we call it a protest and laws don't matter.... LOL!
I will be sure to tell the media I am protesting the government as I run road-blocks and move into federal buildings with my weapons and friends. Maybe I should invite some followers to come and sing to us and we can have a grand ole time. Then when we are done, we can ask to be absolved of any wrong doing and that we just want to go home.
These guys decided that they were above the law but only Steven Segal is "Above the Law"...
OK, I arm myself to the teeth and then commit an illegal act and expect the authorities to back down. I really don't see how I could expect a peaceful outcome. Unless I was given the chance to surrender and took it. I'm truly sorry that there was any bloodshed at all but considering the position and attitude that the occupiers took I'm not at al surprised at the result. I still hope and expect the four occupiers left to lay down their weapons and surrender. Unless they're just completely nuts.
I guess we know what side of the Revolutionary War you would be on. That said, educate yourself on natural rights, and then weigh in on this topic. If natural rights did not exist, then yes, you would be correct.
As for LaVoy running over a agent, that was low, even for a liberal. The video clearly shows the agent moving in path of the vehicle, and moving away at the last second. I can only think of one reason to move in front of a vehicle, and that is to fire shots.
Educate yourself on the law and the Constitution. We have laws for a reason. They believe they are above the law and it seems you do also (natural rights in this case... no way, too late, they made their decision, especially LaVoy. They could have settled this a long time ago).
Hey, doesn't matter what I say... facts are facts, right there in the video. LaVoy did not follow instructions of those who are upholding the law. He drove away and YES almost hit an officer of the law... you know a human being who has sworn an oath to the laws that WE ALL AGREE to live under (well, except for LaVoy and his clan).
He broke the law, and was given an opportunity to surrender and have the case settled in court, if need be. But he knew he was going to go to prison and so he decided to let someone shoot him, instead of taking responsibility for his actions. This is what it is starting to look like... the guy knew he was wrong and wasn't going to accept the consequences of his own actions. That is your hero? No way.
Don't even try to compare this to the revolutionary war.... these guys don't deserve level of admiration. They did not seek legal means to resolve their issue, they instead armed themselves and decided that US laws don't apply to "their cause". Their hero.... Bundy... still owes $1M. I wonder if you look up to this guy also.
quote
Originally posted by dennis_6:
I guess we know what side of the Revolutionary War you would be on. That said, educate yourself on natural rights, and then weigh in on this topic. If natural rights did not exist, then yes, you would be correct.
As for LaVoy running over a agent, that was low, even for a liberal. The video clearly shows the agent moving in path of the vehicle, and moving away at the last second. I can only think of one reason to move in front of a vehicle, and that is to fire shots.
I guess we know what side of the Revolutionary War you would be on. That said, educate yourself on natural rights, and then weigh in on this topic. If natural rights did not exist, then yes, you would be correct.
As for LaVoy running over a agent, that was low, even for a liberal. The video clearly shows the agent moving in path of the vehicle, and moving away at the last second. I can only think of one reason to move in front of a vehicle, and that is to fire shots.
I used to say that the revolutionary war was an example of a just war and I won't disrespect those who put their life on the line. That being said I guess that Canada is the example of what we would be if there was no war. Canada seems like a pretty nice place to me. Please don't misread this and label me a traitor.
I used to say that the revolutionary war was an example of a just war and I won't disrespect those who put their life on the line. That being said I guess that Canada is the example of what we would be if there was no war. Canada seems like a pretty nice place to me. Please don't misread this and label me a traitor.
If you were a Brit, the revolutionists were terrorists.... if we used today's nomenclature.
If we can tell our boys overseas to hold their fire unless fired upon when facing groups with a known history of killing servicemen, why can't local law enforcement do the same when facing ranchers who just want their cause to be heard?
@ Jaskispyder... You are getting to much joy from all of this.
No, it is sad that people think that they are "heros" and then they believe the officers are plotting against them. The same officers who go home at night, sit with their families and try to lead normal lives. Everyday, people like these "heros" are trying to shoot (or run over) them. Sigh...
Originally posted by Boostdreamer: who just want their cause to be heard?
That time was long gone. They were armed and fleeing... using a motor vehicle as a weapon. Guy gets out, ignores commands, reaches... what more do you need? Someone was going to get hurt and LaVoy forced it.
Maybe someday he will wake up out of his dream of LALA land and see that reality is not what he wants it to be, although I'm guessing he won't.
Kevin
Reality: Rancher Bundy owes (under a contract HE SIGNED) the US (you and me) $1M. He believes laws don't apply to him. His band of mis-fits believe US laws do not apply to them and they put others in harms way by their actions.
Feel free to support these guys, but they are not who you want them to be, that is the reality.
No, it is sad that people think that they are "heros" and then they believe the officers are plotting against them. The same officers who go home at night, sit with their families and try to lead normal lives. Everyday, people like these "heros" are trying to shoot (or run over) them. Sigh...
LaVoy is not a martyr.
To be perfectly honest, I didn't see, read, or hear anywhere that Lavoy shot at anybody. Did I miss that story somewhere?
Also, the aerial video that I've seen did NOT show Lavoy swerving to try to hit an officer. It showed him swerving into the ditch to miss the officer's vehicle and an officer tried to run out in front of Lavoy's truck as it went off into the ditch. Seems like the officer who ran out in front of Lavoy's truck could have been doing that to give justification for them to declare Lavoy was assaulting law enforcement, at the very least.
I have read several witness accounts that Lavoy's truck had been shot at by law enforcement as he was leaving the first traffic stop where the guys in the jeep surrendered. What possible justification gives law enforcement the right to fire upon a fleeing vehicle that has more than one occupant (of which could possibly be innocent)? Did Lavoy or any of the occupants of the truck shoot at the officers first?
I'm also reading eyewitness accounts that say Lavoy was struck by gunfire before he lowered his hands which caused him to lower his hands to clinch his wounds.
Reality: Rancher Bundy owes (under a contract HE SIGNED) the US (you and me) $1M. He believes laws don't apply to him. His band of mis-fits believe US laws do not apply to them and they put others in harms way by their actions.
Feel free to support these guys, but they are not who you want them to be, that is the reality.
Hillary Clinton illegally kept state department emails on her own personal server. But yet many still support her. She doesn't believe the law applies to her, and there are people in this administration who are trying to prevent her from being brought to justice.
What do you think does more damage to the citizens of our country? Some rancher's cattle who ate grass on land I'll never see and the government will never let ME use? Or the emails with national security implications that were probably hacked by China and Russia because they were kept on an illegal unsecured private server?
This administration illegally gave weapons to Mexican drug cartels. One of which was responsible for the murder of a U.S. border agent, and another of which was confirmed to be captured along with El Chapo.
What do you think hurts the people of the U.S. more? Bundy's $1M he owes or all those weapons Obama gave to the Mexican drug cartels?
Shall I continue? You want us to hold SOME people accountable to the law but obviously YOU LOOK THE OTHER WAY when people from your own political party are guilty of much worse things. If the law is the law, then everyone should be held accountable equally. That is not what is going on though and it seems pretty one-sided to me.
[This message has been edited by Darth Fiero (edited 02-05-2016).]
Deflection.... Lets stay on topic... Should we excuse the ranchers because their crimes impact fewer people? Nope...
quote
Originally posted by Darth Fiero:
Hillary Clinton illegally kept state department emails on her own personal server. But yet many still support her. She doesn't believe the law applies to her, and there are people in this administration who are trying to prevent her from being brought to justice.
What do you think does more damage to the citizens of our country? Some rancher's cattle who ate grass on land I'll never see and the government will never let ME use? Or the emails with national security implications that were probably hacked by China and Russia because they were kept on an illegal unsecured private server?
Deflection.... Lets stay on topic... Should we excuse the ranchers because their crimes impact fewer people? Nope...
You started the deflection, not me. What does Cliven Bundy have to do with this thread? I thought this was a thread about the standoff in Oregon propagated by two ranchers from the Burns area that were sent to jail for starting fires?
I guess it isn't deflection if you do it, only if people you don't agree with do it. I see how it works now...
[This message has been edited by Darth Fiero (edited 02-05-2016).]
Eye witness... the 18 year old "woman" who was on the floor? Did you watch the CNN interview with her? She is pure emotion. For all we know, she was LaVoy's human shield. The guy put others in harms way, that should tell you something about him. What man would take women into a situation where others could be harmed? Stand up guy? Nope.
LaVoy "swerved".... well, good... maybe someone else in the truck grabbed the wheel from him and swerved. If you want to throw speculation out there about what LaVoy or the officer did or didn't do.
Simple... an officer of the law directed LaVoy to follow his commands.... LaVoy didn't. LaVoy would be alive today, if he would have just complied with the officers at the first stop. Again, if I tried what LaVoy did, I would be dead, as well... and so would anyone else. The guy's actions shows little regard for anyone else's well being. I believe his death was part of his plan. If so, he was not sane or rational.
quote
Originally posted by Darth Fiero:
To be perfectly honest, I didn't see, read, or hear anywhere that Lavoy shot at anybody. Did I miss that story somewhere?
Also, the aerial video that I've seen did NOT show Lavoy swerving to try to hit an officer. It showed him swerving into the ditch to miss the officer's vehicle and an officer tried to run out in front of Lavoy's truck as it went off into the ditch. Seems like the officer who ran out in front of Lavoy's truck could have been doing that to give justification for them to declare Lavoy was assaulting law enforcement, at the very least.
I have read several witness accounts that Lavoy's truck had been shot at by law enforcement as he was leaving the first traffic stop where the guys in the jeep surrendered. What possible justification gives law enforcement the right to fire upon a fleeing vehicle that has more than one occupant (of which could possibly be innocent)? Did Lavoy or any of the occupants of the truck shoot at the officers first?
I'm also reading eyewitness accounts that say Lavoy was struck by gunfire before he lowered his hands which caused him to lower his hands to clinch his wounds.
A heck of a lot more than Hillary Clinton'e emails!
More deflection on your part. SOP by you when you lose the argument.
Cliven Bundy, himself, had nothing to do with this standoff in Oregon unless he sent his sons there, under orders, to protest on his behalf. But I haven't heard any evidence proving that.
But yet, you brought him up in this thread, and it is not what triggered the Oregon standoff. What triggered the Oregon standoff was the re-jailing of the Hammonds after the government decided the prison terms they already served for this same crime were not long enough.
Eye witness... the 18 year old "woman" who was on the floor? Did you watch the CNN interview with her? She is pure emotion. For all we know, she was LaVoy's human shield. The guy put others in harms way, that should tell you something about him. What man would take women into a situation where others could be harmed? Stand up guy? Nope.
LaVoy "swerved".... well, good... maybe someone else in the truck grabbed the wheel from him and swerved. If you want to throw speculation out there about what LaVoy or the officer did or didn't do.
Simple... an officer of the law directed LaVoy to follow his commands.... LaVoy didn't. LaVoy would be alive today, if he would have just complied with the officers at the first stop. Again, if I tried what LaVoy did, I would be dead, as well... and so would anyone else. The guy's actions shows little regard for anyone else's well being. I believe his death was part of his plan. If so, he was not sane or rational.
I'm not defending what Lavoy and the others did nor how they went about doing it. But I'm also well aware of the tactics the government likes to employ in these kinds of situations and I don't trust what they are saying now either.
Read up on the Ruby Ridge incident. The primary suspect of that investigation was by no means innocent either. But that didn't give the government the right to issue kill orders, which they did in that particular situation. One federal officer was shot and killed in that incident, and a jury called it "justified self-defense" by one of the group that was allied with the primary suspect. So how does this figure into your reasoning?
As for this topic (Lavoy), the investigation is far from over. And I have a feeling that law enforcement, in this case, is not going to be found completely innocent of any wrong doing. It is probably going to be years before everything comes to light due to the on-going legal process.
All I'm saying is I don't hold this government in as high of a regard as you do. I am a student of history and I recognize a repeating pattern when I see one.
[This message has been edited by Darth Fiero (edited 02-05-2016).]
Just that he is a rancher and his son is there. Yeah... nothing to do with this
Sorry, your comments are too funny. Then you bring up Hillary because you think I support her. Talk about deflecting when losing an argument. LOL!
What's next... gonna bring in Obama? Oh wait, that was done by someone else.
These aren't the heros America is looking for... sorry, they are criminals and should be held accountable for their actions.
quote
Originally posted by Darth Fiero:
More deflection on your part. SOP by you when you lose the argument.
Cliven Bundy, himself, had nothing to do with this standoff in Oregon unless he sent his sons there, under orders, to protest on his behalf. But I haven't heard any evidence proving that.
But yet, you brought him up in this thread, and it is not what triggered the Oregon standoff. What triggered the Oregon standoff was the re-jailing of the Hammonds after the government decided the prison terms they already served for this same crime were not long enough.
Just that he is a rancher and his son is there. Yeah... nothing to do with this
Sorry, your comments are too funny. Then you bring up Hillary because you think I support her. Talk about deflecting when losing an argument. LOL!
What's next... gonna bring in Obama? Oh wait, that was done by someone else.
These aren't the heros America is looking for... sorry, they are criminals and should be held accountable for their actions.
Keep laughing. That's something else you like to do to deflect because you've lost the argument.
Cliven Bundy had nothing to do with the standoff in Oregon.
Did some people travel to Burns in defense of the Hammonds partly based on what happened to Cliven? Perhaps. But they were not there protesting at the refuge asking for the government to forgive Cliven of his debts, were they? The only demands I heard were for the Hammonds to be released from jail and for the federal government to give back the land they stole to the people.
Rancher Bundy owes (under a contract HE SIGNED) the US (you and me) $1M.
Since you like to go off-topic, I think I'll come back to this. Cliven Bundy did have a contract (if you can call it that) with the feds for grazing rights at one point. But the feds changed the rules of the original contract to increase grazing fees because they were running a racket and figured they could get more money out of the ranchers (and Cliven wasn't the only one). And that's the point when Bundy decided to quit playing ball.
The land Bundy was using was purchased from Mexico by the US Government in 1848. Land, mind you, that most Mexicans and Mexican immigrants claim was stolen from them by the US Gov't in the first place. So who really owns this land? If I ask the Mexicans, they say they own it. If you ask the Moapa Paiute tribe, they'll probably say they own it because their ancestors inhabited those lands when the US Gov't "stole" it from Mexico. But, to be honest, I'm sure we could go back in history further and find it belonged to many others.
The problem we have here is the government runs a racket and pretty much does a lot of underhanded things to its own citizens without much oversight or accountability. And that's what has many people upset. If you want to play this game of "who did it belong to first", we can keep turning back the pages of history and keep finding more different peoples it belonged to before. I'm sure we can find some decedent of some Indian tribe who owned the land your house sits on, Jask, who will say they want it back. Are you just going to give it to them if they ask for it? No, of course not.
How would you feel of the BLM moved in and claimed the property running up to your doorstep was now theirs, and you either had to start paying them an annual fee just to walk across it or you had to vacate your house immediately? Would you just walk away with a 1-time "fair market value" payment from the government that was pennies-on-the-dollar of what your property was actually worth?
This is what has been happening to a lot of ranchers. This is what has so many people inflamed.
Do I agree with the tactics the Bundy Brothers and those of their group employed in Burns, Oregon? NO.
Do I sympothise with the ranchers and every other citizen in this country that feels like the government just keeps taking more and more from all of us and does with it what they please that we don't agree with? YES.
OK, I arm myself to the teeth and then commit an illegal act and expect the authorities to back down. I really don't see how I could expect a peaceful outcome. Unless I was given the chance to surrender and took it. I'm truly sorry that there was any bloodshed at all but considering the position and attitude that the occupiers took I'm not at al surprised at the result. I still hope and expect the four occupiers left to lay down their weapons and surrender. Unless they're just completely nuts.
???? So everyone carrying a weapon means armed to the teeth. I go out armed to the teeth (Ruger LCP 380) everyday then by your def, even when I mow the lawn. Are they not just occupying a PUBLIC building belonging to the people and operated by a govenment park service ? By your idea the IRS is a terrorist organization...they take your money away from you and threaten you or to take your property at their will.
[This message has been edited by rogergarrison (edited 02-05-2016).]
I support what they did and how they did it. Citizens listen to cops because they have guns strapped to their hips. Without the guns, they would get zero respect. Same with these ranchers. They would just be flies at a picknick without being armed. The guns are what made them heard WITHOUT ever pointing them or firing them.
If you were a Brit, the revolutionists were terrorists.... if we used today's nomenclature.
Bingo! BTW, No one is calling the Bundy group heroes. At least, not here. What they are is Americans that got tired of unconstitutional hardships, imposed by a Government acting outside its authority. No, they didn't handle things properly, but the outrage, that is understandable.
You seem to only be able to view a situation through liberal glasses, if the protest wasn't a liberal or a "protected group" protest, then they are wrong.
[This message has been edited by dennis_6 (edited 02-05-2016).]
Unconstitutional hardships? Nope. You call me a liberal but you fail to see anything but your anti-government conspiracies.... It is like watching an episode of the xfiles.
quote
Originally posted by dennis_6:
Bingo! BTW, No one is calling the Bundy group heroes. At least, not here. What they are is Americans that got tired of unconstitutional hardships, imposed by a Government acting outside its authority. No, they didn't handle things properly, but the outrage, that is understandable.
You seem to only be able to view a situation through liberal glasses, if the protest wasn't a liberal or a "protected group" protest, then they are wrong.
Bundy owes us $1M. He chose to not pay. Cut and dry. You want to blame the government. When a tennet does not pay the rent, you kick them out. Just another moocher. Takes what doesn't belong to him nor will pay for what he uses. BLM won't take my land. Nice try, you see, I know what land is mine, unlike Bundy.
quote
Originally posted by Darth Fiero:
Since you like to go off-topic, I think I'll come back to this. Cliven Bundy did have a contract (if you can call it that) with the feds for grazing rights at one point. But the feds changed the rules of the original contract to increase grazing fees because they were running a racket and figured they could get more money out of the ranchers (and Cliven wasn't the only one). And that's the point when Bundy decided to quit playing ball.
The land Bundy was using was purchased from Mexico by the US Government in 1848. Land, mind you, that most Mexicans and Mexican immigrants claim was stolen from them by the US Gov't in the first place. So who really owns this land? If I ask the Mexicans, they say they own it. If you ask the Moapa Paiute tribe, they'll probably say they own it because their ancestors inhabited those lands when the US Gov't "stole" it from Mexico. But, to be honest, I'm sure we could go back in history further and find it belonged to many others.
The problem we have here is the government runs a racket and pretty much does a lot of underhanded things to its own citizens without much oversight or accountability. And that's what has many people upset. If you want to play this game of "who did it belong to first", we can keep turning back the pages of history and keep finding more different peoples it belonged to before. I'm sure we can find some decedent of some Indian tribe who owned the land your house sits on, Jask, who will say they want it back. Are you just going to give it to them if they ask for it? No, of course not.
How would you feel of the BLM moved in and claimed the property running up to your doorstep was now theirs, and you either had to start paying them an annual fee just to walk across it or you had to vacate your house immediately? Would you just walk away with a 1-time "fair market value" payment from the government that was pennies-on-the-dollar of what your property was actually worth?
This is what has been happening to a lot of ranchers. This is what has so many people inflamed.
Do I agree with the tactics the Bundy Brothers and those of their group employed in Burns, Oregon? NO.
Do I sympothise with the ranchers and every other citizen in this country that feels like the government just keeps taking more and more from all of us and does with it what they please that we don't agree with? YES.
Unconstitutional hardships? Nope. You call me a liberal but you fail to see anything but your anti-government conspiracies.... It is like watching an episode of the xfiles.
The Constitution clearly lays out what land, the government can own. They can hold BLM temporarily, not for hundreds of years. They could and should give it to the states, and allow them to do with it as they will.
The Constitution clearly lays out what land, the government can own. They can hold BLM temporarily, not for hundreds of years. They could and should give it to the states, and allow them to do with it as they will.
Is this some of the land that the Govenment wants to keep undeveloped?
Why does this group think they should keep it and not move out so another American family can "ranch" it for a while? If they do not own it, why can't somebody else use it?
Is this some of the land that the Govenment wants to keep undeveloped?
Why does this group think they should keep it and not move out so another American family can "ranch" it for a while? If they do not own it, why can't somebody else use it?
The Hammond's were convicted of a back burn to save their ranch from a fire the blm might have started. Had nothing to do with leased land other than the back burn consumed a 100 acres. Cliven Bundy was about blm grazing.
The Hammond's were convicted of a back burn to save their ranch from a fire the blm might have started. Had nothing to do with leased land other than the back burn consumed a 100 acres. Cliven Bundy was about blm grazing.
