• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

I am sure the conservatives are supporting the new police free zone in Seattle

jamesbyoung said:
Says a supporter of Bundy's secession and treason. :)
Click to expand...

On what basis was Bundy engaging in secession or treason?

Do you believe that anyone who engages in any form of protest or willful disobedience of Federal Law should stand trial for treason?
 
Last edited:
rahl said:
what did you disagree with? and other forums have nothing to do with this one.
Click to expand...

This is our disagreement.

So you refuse to PM me the other name. I will try other ways.

"Quote Originally Posted by rahl View Post
of course they do

strawman. nobody is doing that. Nothing they are doing is illegal."
 
Citizen said:
I am not saying that I support either. What I am saying is that Bundy occupied government land with guns. The Seattle People are occupying land without guns. That is the only difference I see. So you support one and not the other. I find that hypocritical
Click to expand...

That is clearly false, Citizen. The so-called CHAZ occupiers are engaging in their occupation with guns.
 
mike2810 said:
Yep. for that incident.

Guess you support Bundy not paying grazing fees for years. :lamo
Click to expand...

I have never grazed cattle so to get more data I did a lot of exploring over what he and the Feds had a beef over. (no pun)

I probably forgot the precise details but my best recollection is Bundy had used that land ahead of it being Federal and his case was his awarded grazing rights had never expired. Thus fees were out of line to force him to pay.
 
Robertinfremont said:
That is a lousy example given that Ammon Bundy was found not guilty by the Jury.
Click to expand...

You are SO wrong. It is a beautiful answer. So beautiful. What is good for the Ammon and is good for Seattle.
 
Felis Leo said:
That is clearly false, Citizen. The so-called CHAZ occupiers are engaging in their occupation with guns.
Click to expand...

Thanks since I do not actually know the Seattle area and damned near nothing of it's problems that I presumed if there are blacks, they live in we be village. A cop told me about we be village. "We be goin to Church. We be goin to grade school. "
 
jamesbyoung said:
You are SO wrong. It is a beautiful answer. So beautiful. What is good for the Ammon and is good for Seattle.
Click to expand...

Seattle is a vipers nest of Democrats so if the charges are local or state CHAZ will not be found guilty.
 
Robertinfremont said:
I have never grazed cattle so to get more data I did a lot of exploring over what he and the Feds had a beef over. (no pun)

I probably forgot the precise details but my best recollection is Bundy had used that land ahead of it being Federal and his case was his awarded grazing rights had never expired. Thus fees were out of line to force him to pay.
Click to expand...

. . . before it was federalizing. That changed matters. Of course he should pay fees to We the People for his use of Our land.
 
Citizen said:
I am not saying that I support either. What I am saying is that Bundy occupied government land with guns. The Seattle People are occupying land without guns. That is the only difference I see. So you support one and not the other. I find that hypocritical
Click to expand...

Bundy was white.
 
smallvoice said:
Who owns the property? If it's the taxpayer, they need to be evicted, peaceably if possible, otherwise forcefully. They may go to their own property and do whatever they think they can, as long as it doesn't impact the rest of us. They can certainly try to secede, but the property rights will have a big bearing on how that comes out.
Click to expand...
Thank you for agreeing with my point. You admit that much of the property belongs to the city (through taxpayers), and most of the utilities are also probably in the city's name (through taxpayers). It is not a secession if the city and state still own the property and utilities and are permitting use of said property and utilities. It is also up to city and state officials whether and by what means they want to regain control of their facilities and/or press charges for unlawful assembly, insurrection, or other crimes.
 
Xilnik said:
A group cannot secede from the country while still being within the country and using government and city resources. Stop trying to pretend this is a secession. It is a silly stance.
Click to expand...

It's an occupation. Did everyone sign on to this? Are people denied free travel on city roadways? Is criminal activity going on....extorting money from citizens?
 
jamesbyoung said:
So did the Bundyites, chief.
Click to expand...

Your major problem is we have a resolved court case as to Bundy, and his jury called the shots and said clearly not guilty.

You appear to have wanted Bundy found guilty while supporting the crimes of CHAZ. Strange way to see law and justice.

When Bundy got charged in Oregon, I saw both sides.
 
Felis Leo said:
Ammon Bundy's behavior was unlawful. But how was it "anti-American"?
Click to expand...
'

It's not pro-American to squat on We the People land. It's not pro-American to not pay We the People for the use of our land (grazing fees). It's not pro-American to threaten LEO with firearms.
 
Aurora said:
It's an occupation. Did everyone sign on to this? Are people denied free travel on city roadways? Is criminal activity going on....extorting money from citizens?
Click to expand...

I never argued against that stance. apdst did by claiming it is a secession due to silly signs that say people are leaving the United States by crossing CHAZ borders.
 
Citizen said:
It is not irrelevant. Irrelevant to what. Both situations are the same
Click to expand...

Just because they hsven't been arrested doesn't mean they haven't broken any laws.
 
Xilnik said:
I never argued against that stance. apdst did by claiming it is a secession due to silly signs that say people are leaving the United States by crossing CHAZ borders.
Click to expand...

And I'm right.
 
Xilnik said:
Thank you for agreeing with my point. You admit that much of the property belongs to the city (through taxpayers), and most of the utilities are also probably in the city's name (through taxpayers). It is not a secession if the city and state still own the property and utilities and are permitting use of said property and utilities. It is also up to city and state officials whether and by what means they want to regain control of their facilities and/or press charges for unlawful assembly, insurrection, or other crimes.
Click to expand...

I personally never would call their unlawful action by the lawful term secession. I believe to secede, it means the citizens voted and thus authorize a government to form as a new but lawful government.

I argue that this is what the Confederates did in 1861.
 
Xilnik said:
Thank you for agreeing with my point. You admit that much of the property belongs to the city (through taxpayers), and most of the utilities are also probably in the city's name (through taxpayers). It is not a secession if the city and state still own the property and utilities and are permitting use of said property and utilities. It is also up to city and state officials whether and by what means they want to regain control of their facilities and/or press charges for unlawful assembly, insurrection, or other crimes.
Click to expand...

Well, I didn't admit anything, but I believe a bulldozer will do what is needed.
 
Robertinfremont said:
Your major problem is we have a resolved court case as to Bundy, and his jury called the shots and said clearly not guilty. You appear to have wanted Bundy found guilty while supporting the crimes of CHAZ. Strange way to see law and justice. When Bundy got charged in Oregon, I saw both sides.
Click to expand...

You cannot show that I support Chaz, so stuff that, my friend. I don't.

The Bundyites got a jull nury, which was anti-American.

You see only the far right Tea Party anti-American side.
 
Ikari said:
I think the difference here was that Seattle gave "permission" of sorts for the protesters to occupy the area, where as Ammon and his folk did not. But the end for CHAZ will be much the same as it was here. CHAZ won't get to occupy that area permanently, and either their coallition of the willing will collapse and they'll leave, or eventually the police will return. The Ammon thing was mostly peaceful, which is good, though the cops did kill one whom they claimed had gone for a gun. You get these occupations from time to time, some on people's own property (like Waco and Ruby Ridge), some on government land like here, and I think uniquely in the CHAZ case, on government land with permission of the government. It's best if these things can be resolved peacefully, but those in the CHAZ should be wary. The government will not hesitate to Ruby Ridge or Waco their asses if given half the chance. The moment Seattle says that they have to vacate, they best listen (if they're still there). In hold outs against the Government, the Government tends to win.
Click to expand...

There is no real permission. They didn't ask for permission and none was explicitly given. They moved in and barricaded the streets, posted guards and hung signs saying they were taking over and police stay out. The city then capitulated like whipped dogs. In the Oregon case the land hand been free for ranchers to use for their cattle and the government decided to change the rules. The rancher family was trying to fight it in the court and the "protesters" showed up unrequested.
If you forcefully take something that doesn't belong to you, you take sides against the government, local, regional, state or federal you are committing a crime and you should have to pay the legal penalty.
Did anyone ask all the business owners in the Capital Hill Autonomous Zone, CHAZ, if they wanted this done? Why have the majority of businesses in the zone boarded up their business and I watched this morning as several were interviewed and complained about the graffiti and fear of more damage to their business.
It sure seems one sided in the who really wanted this to happen and it wasn't the people who owned the businesses and buildings.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom