Oregon standoff leader attends meeting, hears chants of 'go'

[VanceMack]

It's an admin centre, they're preventing staff access, and they've broken into government files. Defending the high plains grifters is sick.

And of course, you can do what none of the others have been able to manage to do...show ANYWHERE where I have defended ANYONE. Right?

 

[rocket88]

Name ONE TIME where I have said they werent in the wrong. Just one time.

You're all over this thread downplaying it. And other threads. Strange behavior for someone who thinks they're wrong, don't you think?

 

[VanceMack]

You're all over this thread downplaying it. And other threads. Strange behavior for someone who thinks they're wrong, don't you think?

Ive downplayed nothing and in fact have repeatedly said that if they have broken the law they should be arrested and held accountable. So...unless you can show an instance of even ONE TIME where I have said they werent in the wrong, we can just chalk you up to that growing list of people making ridiculous claims and talking out of your ass.

 

[mike2810]

I agree, its a waste of time to talk to him, he is just beyond reason, and he keeps committing the same crap.

When a poster does not understand what is federal and what is State property,, Does not understand the history of why land ownership is what it is today, Does not understand multiple use concept of managing land and natural resources, there is no hope in discussing.

When poster generalize the civil disobedience and also state they would not do what the protesters are doing, to me is just trolling.

As far as the feds seizing State land, No one has presented evidence that has happened in Oregon.
Even if the land was State, I would bet the Bundy's would not pay the grazing fees. They are ripping off the taxpayer. If its State land, it then belongs to all the people of the State. and Bundy is not even a resident of Oregon.

I may follow this thread. if I respond it will be posters who are making sense and not grand standing on some broad stance under the guise of civil disobience. The issue is far greater than that dealing with the Bundy's.

 

[Crosscheck]

When a poster does not understand what is federal and what is State property,, Does not understand the history of why land ownership is what it is today, Does not understand multiple use concept of managing land and natural resources, there is no hope in discussing.

When poster generalize the civil disobedience and also state they would not do what the protesters are doing, to me is just trolling.

As far as the feds seizing State land, No one has presented evidence that has happened in Oregon.
Even if the land was State, I would bet the Bundy's would not pay the grazing fees. They are ripping off the taxpayer. If its State land, it then belongs to all the people of the State. and Bundy is not even a resident of Oregon.

I may follow this thread. if I respond it will be posters who are making sense and not grand standing on some broad stance under the guise of civil disobience. The issue is far greater than that dealing with the Bundy's.

Very astute observation. On the surface this is puzzling while this circus is able to continue. But definitely the feds are in charge here and Bundy and cronies may be playing right into their hands.

I would be shocked if there is not one agent inside the compound with the group unbeknownst to the Bundy's clown team.

 

[ajn678]

Ive downplayed nothing and in fact have repeatedly said that if they have broken the law they should be arrested and held accountable. So...unless you can show an instance of even ONE TIME where I have said they werent in the wrong, we can just chalk you up to that growing list of people making ridiculous claims and talking out of your ass.

You calling this civil disobedience is downplaying the issue and saying they did nothing wrong. You clearly are so blinded with your federal governmental hate that you would support extremists just because they fit your political viewpoints. These "men" took over a government compound while they were armed. They are continuing to hold it, while being armed, and are supposedly ready to kill government officials if they come to take it back.

To put things in perspective(I doubt you can understand anything really after reading your posts), if a group of BLM or Occupy Wallstreet from a while back took up arms and decided to take over a building while being armed, mass amounts of protests and blood lust would be coming from the same groups that you are supporting right now. You are obviously nothing more than a clueless hack who can't put anything logical to "paper" and keeps repeating the same horrid lines over and over. I would think after posting over 39,000 times you would be better at attempting to argue, however it seems like a lost cause with you.

 

[ajn678]

Clearly I know NOTHING about the United States compared to your vast knowledge.

I just spilled my blood on some foreign land for her.

That was NOTHING compared to your intellectual prowess.

I stand humbled indeed.

Like another posted has said, military experience doesn't give you knowledge that another person could have about America. And based on your posting and inability to see facts, I would assume you were one that went into the military because you didn't have any other options in life.

 

[Hawkeye10]

The federal government has been criticized for its “passive approach” to dealing with the armed protesters. But it could have something to do with the FBI’s past missteps with armed conflicts.

In 1993, more than 80 people, including four federal agents, were killed in an armed standoff in Waco, Texas. Cult leader David Koresh and his followers held out for 51 days before the FBI advanced on them, prompting them to set their compound ablaze and killing almost everyone inside. (Video via CNN)

The FBI appears to have learned its lesson. A hostage negotiator from that siege was hired out of retirement to help with the situation in Oregon.

Danny Coulson, who used to run the FBI’s Hostage Rescue Team, said it’s better to let a group end a siege on its own, rather than to force their hand one way or the other.

He said, “Sooner or later, the wives are going to get sick of the sight of their husbands screwing around out there, or they’ll need to go get cigarettes. It will end the right way.”

And if the federal forces opted to take out the militia through force, that could end up backfiring on the government in a big way.

The director of the Anti-Defamation League’s Center on Extremism told the Guardian taking such an aggressive approach would play right into the militia’s hands, especially since they’ve already expressed their willingness to die for their cause.

He said, “If you try to use force to resolve the situation, there’s a risk that one or more of the extremists involved may be killed and turn into martyrs. You can end up spawning far more retaliatory acts of violence than whatever harm the initial incident could have caused.”

The FBI Has A Good Reason For Not Confronting The Oregon Militia (VIDEO) | U.S.


Awsome

Next time some hoodlums want my house I will go check into a motel till they are ready to leave. I will come back to my house once a day to see if I can talk them into leaving.

This is the best that I can do.

 

[VanceMack]

You calling this civil disobedience is downplaying the issue and saying they did nothing wrong. You clearly are so blinded with your federal governmental hate that you would support extremists just because they fit your political viewpoints. These "men" took over a government compound while they were armed. They are continuing to hold it, while being armed, and are supposedly ready to kill government officials if they come to take it back.

To put things in perspective(I doubt you can understand anything really after reading your posts), if a group of BLM or Occupy Wallstreet from a while back took up arms and decided to take over a building while being armed, mass amounts of protests and blood lust would be coming from the same groups that you are supporting right now. You are obviously nothing more than a clueless hack who can't put anything logical to "paper" and keeps repeating the same horrid lines over and over. I would think after posting over 39,000 times you would be better at attempting to argue, however it seems like a lost cause with you.

Thats ridiculous.

"Civil disobedience is the active, professed refusal to obey certain laws, demands, and commands of a government, or of an occupying international power. Civil disobedience is a symbolic or ritualistic violation of the law, rather than a rejection of the system as a whole. Civil disobedience is sometimes, though not always, defined as being nonviolent resistance."

Which is all this is. An act of civil disobedience. If there is criminal behavior it should be addressed.

Your foray into BLM just demonstrates (very clearly) that you too are another that is simply lost in your feelings.

 

[ajn678]

Thats ridiculous.

"Civil disobedience is the active, professed refusal to obey certain laws, demands, and commands of a government, or of an occupying international power. Civil disobedience is a symbolic or ritualistic violation of the law, rather than a rejection of the system as a whole. Civil disobedience is sometimes, though not always, defined as being nonviolent resistance."

Which is all this is. An act of civil disobedience. If there is criminal behavior it should be addressed.

Your foray into BLM just demonstrates (very clearly) that you too are another that is simply lost in your feelings.

Can you explain how someone that takes over a government compound while armed is not breaking the law? Civil disobedience is still breaking the law, just so we are clear.

 

[VanceMack]

Can you explain how someone that takes over a government compound while armed is not breaking the law? Civil disobedience is still breaking the law, just so we are clear.

Can you offer some example where I have suggested they HAVENT broken the law or that they shouldnt be held accountable?

 

[ajn678]

Which is all this is. An act of civil disobedience. If there is criminal behavior it should be addressed.

Your foray into BLM just demonstrates (very clearly) that you too are another that is simply lost in your feelings.

By stating something is an act of civil disobedience and then stating that if there is criminal behavior, is stating that you believe civil disobedience is not a crime. However, this is a crime and they are going beyond what most would consider civil disobedience. And then we have the issue of the guns. There is a reason that crimes that are committed with a weapon bring harsher punishments than the same crime without. This is because guns can produce great amounts of bodily harm to those that posses them and those that are on the other end of them.

 

[reinoe]

The FBI Has A Good Reason For Not Confronting The Oregon Militia (VIDEO) | U.S.


Awsome

Next time some hoodlums want my house I will go check into a motel till they are ready to leave. I will come back to my house once a day to see if I can talk them into leaving.

This is the best that I can do.

Yeah, that article is garbage. They feds are allowing these people to go back and forth as they please so the "run out of cigarettes" is not going to happen. And many of these people are unemployed leechers off the government. Screwing around is literally the only thing the wives have ever seen them do.

 

[VanceMack]

By stating something is an act of civil disobedience and then stating that if there is criminal behavior, is stating that you believe civil disobedience is not a crime. However, this is a crime and they are going beyond what most would consider civil disobedience. And then we have the issue of the guns. There is a reason that crimes that are committed with a weapon bring harsher punishments than the same crime without. This is because guns can produce great amounts of bodily harm to those that posses them and those that are on the other end of them.

It's stating no such thing. I am describing what they are doing...an act of civil disobedience. I am allowing for the authority of law. If they have committed a crime they should be held accountable. Nothing more or less. It's rather comical to see how desperate you are to try to make it something else.

 

[ajn678]

It's stating no such thing. I am describing what they are doing...an act of civil disobedience. I am allowing for the authority of law. If they have committed a crime they should be held accountable. Nothing more or less. It's rather comical to see how desperate you are to try to make it something else.

So is an act of civil disobedience a crime? Yes or no?

 

[VanceMack]

So is an act of civil disobedience a crime? Yes or no?

One would certainly have to assume so. Thats why God made law enforcement officers, lawyers, judges and stuff like that.

 

[ajn678]

One would certainly have to assume so. Thats why God made law enforcement officers, lawyers, judges and stuff like that.

So if you believe civil disobedience is a crime, then we say that their entire presence being there was a crime. So there was no reason to seperate the two except for the fact that you support what they are doing, even if it is a crime.

 

[VanceMack]

So if you believe civil disobedience is a crime, then we say that their entire presence being there was a crime. So there was no reason to seperate the two except for the fact that you support what they are doing, even if it is a crime.

Your comments are ludicrous. I have stated very clearly that if what they are doing is criminal they should be held accountable.

 

[ajn678]

Your comments are ludicrous. I have stated very clearly that if what they are doing is criminal they should be held accountable.

You have stated that if what they are doing is criminal behavior, they should be punished. Since it seems you can now admit that you have believed civil disobedience to be a criminal act, there was no reason to put in the word if. It seems to me you have a very shallow grasp on the English language, so let me attempt to bring this down to your level. The word "if" is used to contrast information or give conditions on an issue. If you don't go to the party, I will not go either. This implies that if person A does not go to the party, person B will not go either. See how that works? Now let's use it in your example. You state that if this group of people is committing a crime, they should be held responsible. We can infer from this that, if there is no question as to the fact that they committed a crime, there is no reason to include this in your entire argument in this topic.

The fact remains that you have consistently downplayed what they are doing first by calling it a shack in the middle of nowhere. You downplay the fact that these men took over a federal building with weapons. You downplay the fact that this is "civil disobedience" to make it seem like they are marching down the street protesting something like the Civil Rights marches. You downplay their criminality by using the word if in a statement that you have now shown did not have to be used. I would not be surprised if once this is over, and these men are rightly sent to prison for decades, you become part of their fan club and hang posters of them on your walls. Your love for their ideas and the "government is evil and should be overthrown" bias is showing through.

The only ludicrous part of this thread is the fact that you can't grasp ideas that I understood in the second grade. One might also suggest that your admiration and love for these criminals is also ludicrous.

 

[VanceMack]

You have stated that if what they are doing is criminal behavior, they should be punished. Since it seems you can now admit that you have believed civil disobedience to be a criminal act, there was no reason to put in the word if. It seems to me you have a very shallow grasp on the English language, so let me attempt to bring this down to your level. The word "if" is used to contrast information or give conditions on an issue. If you don't go to the party, I will not go either. This implies that if person A does not go to the party, person B will not go either. See how that works? Now let's use it in your example. You state that if this group of people is committing a crime, they should be held responsible. We can infer from this that, if there is no question as to the fact that they committed a crime, there is no reason to include this in your entire argument in this topic.

The fact remains that you have consistently downplayed what they are doing first by calling it a shack in the middle of nowhere. You downplay the fact that these men took over a federal building with weapons. You downplay the fact that this is "civil disobedience" to make it seem like they are marching down the street protesting something like the Civil Rights marches. You downplay their criminality by using the word if in a statement that you have now shown did not have to be used. I would not be surprised if once this is over, and these men are rightly sent to prison for decades, you become part of their fan club and hang posters of them on your walls. Your love for their ideas and the "government is evil and should be overthrown" bias is showing through.

The only ludicrous part of this thread is the fact that you can't grasp ideas that I understood in the second grade. One might also suggest that your admiration and love for these criminals is also ludicrous.

Theres every reason to put in the 'if'. They havent been charged with anything and Im not law enforcement. I'd bet without you rushing off to google you couldnt cite the law you think they ought to be arrested for.

If they are guilty of a crime, they should be held accountable. You want to keep claiming that 'excuses' anything...be my guest.

 

[ajn678]

Theres every reason to put in the 'if'. They havent been charged with anything and Im not law enforcement. I'd bet without you rushing off to google you couldnt cite the law you think they ought to be arrested for.

If they are guilty of a crime, they should be held accountable. You want to keep claiming that 'excuses' anything...be my guest.

Perhaps instead of posting so much you should invest in a logic and reasoning course at your local community college. We do not need to use if in this instance. There is a difference in saying if they committed a crime and if they will be arrested. You keep saying if they committed a crime. We both have agreed they committed a crime. Therefore, there is literally no reason to keep using the word if. You don't need to be arrested to commit a crime. There are plenty of crimes that happen, where no one is arrested. That doesn't mean it is not a crime.

They will surely be charged with something when all is said and done, I believe the FBI is probably looking for a way to throw the book at them to use them as an example to the rest of you right wing nut jobs that things like this don't fly in this country. Like you have said and clearly demonstrated, I am not a lawyer either. However, I know that when you break into a building that does not belong to you, with guns, you are certainly not keeping the law of any normal nation. Off the top of my head, they could be charged with, breaking and entering. And then, there is most likely a stronger version of that law since they broke into the building while armed. There are also laws about using property that doesn't belong to them. Then there's the whole issue of damaging federal property. I am also assuming that there are laws in place for gun violations that they have committed when all is said and done.

Again you severely lack the understanding or knowledge in how to arrive at a logical conclusion so I don't believe much more needs to be said. You can continue to excuse their behaviors, and sane, logical people will continue to hope that they can be arrested peacefully and then thrown in jail for the rest of their worthless lives.

 

[VanceMack]

Perhaps instead of posting so much you should invest in a logic and reasoning course at your local community college. We do not need to use if in this instance. There is a difference in saying if they committed a crime and if they will be arrested. You keep saying if they committed a crime. We both have agreed they committed a crime. Therefore, there is literally no reason to keep using the word if. You don't need to be arrested to commit a crime. There are plenty of crimes that happen, where no one is arrested. That doesn't mean it is not a crime.

They will surely be charged with something when all is said and done, I believe the FBI is probably looking for a way to throw the book at them to use them as an example to the rest of you right wing nut jobs that things like this don't fly in this country. Like you have said and clearly demonstrated, I am not a lawyer either. However, I know that when you break into a building that does not belong to you, with guns, you are certainly not keeping the law of any normal nation. Off the top of my head, they could be charged with, breaking and entering. And then, there is most likely a stronger version of that law since they broke into the building while armed. There are also laws about using property that doesn't belong to them. Then there's the whole issue of damaging federal property. I am also assuming that there are laws in place for gun violations that they have committed when all is said and done.

Again you severely lack the understanding or knowledge in how to arrive at a logical conclusion so I don't believe much more needs to be said. You can continue to excuse their behaviors, and sane, logical people will continue to hope that they can be arrested peacefully and then thrown in jail for the rest of their worthless lives.

As I said. You dont even have the first clue as to what you are clamoring for.

 

[ajn678]

As I said. You dont even have the first clue as to what you are clamoring for.

You are the one that doesn't grasp the simple ideas of the language that you are typing in. There's nothing more to say here. You are clearly wrong, and don't have the mental fortitude to make a worthwhile case.

 

[VanceMack]

You are the one that doesn't grasp the simple ideas of the language that you are typing in. There's nothing more to say here. You are clearly wrong, and don't have the mental fortitude to make a worthwhile case.

:lamo

I am the one that has said all along that if they are guilty of a crime that they should be held accountable. You are just another in a long line of people here bleating on about **** you know nothing about. You KNOW they are guilty of crimes...but you havent the first ****ing clue what they are 'guilty' of. Your failure to cite the laws proves that.

Back to the back of the line. Im sure there will be someone to take your place to make the same ridiculous claims.

 

[ajn678]

:lamo

I am the one that has said all along that if they are guilty of a crime that they should be held accountable. You are just another in a long line of people here bleating on about **** you know nothing about. You KNOW they are guilty of crimes...but you havent the first ****ing clue what they are 'guilty' of. Your failure to cite the laws proves that.

Back to the back of the line. Im sure there will be someone to take your place to make the same ridiculous claims.

If you didn't have the reading comprehension skills of a spec of dust you would have seen and understood that I listed many crimes that they have committed. I do not need to provide specific violations in federal law to know that they have committed a crime, in the same way that I do not need you to come right out and say that you support these small brained idiots who think their rights supercede everyone else's rights in the area. Do you ever think the reason there is a long line of people questioning your ability to think to be connected to the fact that you can't reason whatsoever? The only line I would be getting in is if you ever got elected to a high position in this country. This line would be the first flight out of the country before you destroyed it.