Yeah, no. Let's not do that.Just strip them of citizenship already.
What do you think such a thing would accomish?
Yeah, no. Let's not do that.Just strip them of citizenship already.
How would that get done, the agent asked.
The 50 gallon drum of lube should arrive soon, and then they'll be set.
Reminder because some people still don't get it: It's been two years since Cliven Bundy pulled similar shit in Nevada. He still owes the government $1 million and he's still free to roam wherever he pleases.
But they the only ones talking about dying and killingghoulish sociopaths who salivate at the prospect of watching Americans die on camera, like
Fill these low lives full of lead.
Yeah, the response to a building takeover by armed men is different, I can't see how after more than 30 pages you still don't get this.
Yo, Dai101..come explain it.I thought we didn't negotiate with terrorists.
Same applies..Why?
Well you shouldn't forget that they are not just staying in the building. They are going back and fourth in to town and there are many reports of them harassing people. Also Ammon Bundy decided to go to a town hall meeting just a couple days ago and instead of arresting them, they just got yelled at. Nothing is being done about this and it's affecting this whole area.
Yeah, no. Let's not do that.
What do you think such a thing would accomish?
Because whether you recognize the federal government or not doesn't affect it's authority over you.That if you don't consider the federal government of the United States as authority, then you are not permitted the rights that the federal government offers?
You can still have simple rights afforded to all people, just not specific ones like Medicaid. Or federal voting rights.
Certainly better than filling them up with lead.
Sheriff Glenn Palmer said in a statement to The Oregonian/OregonLive that "the government is going to have to concede something" to end the occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.
He said freeing a father-son ranching team from prison "would be a start. Sending the FBI home would be a start." He referred to the FBI's lead role in ending the refuge occupation.
You must be reading a different thread than me.Exactly. No one here (I don't think) is seriously saying that law enforcement should storm the place, but allowing them to have total free reign of the facility and town with no consequences is just outright irresponsible.
...How are they still alive?
hahahaha.. Oh wait, you are serious? Let me laugh harder HAHAHAHAHAHe said freeing a father-son ranching team from prison "would be a start. Sending the FBI home would be a start." He referred to the FBI's lead role in ending the refuge occupation.
http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/01/post_2.html
This is beyond a joke now.
This sheriff should be fired. Fucking embarrassing for my state of Oregon.
hahahaha.. Oh wait, you are serious? Let me laugh harder HAHAHAHAHA
The longer this goes on I am slowly coming to not have a problem with how the Feds are handling this. I still think there are troubling racial implications exposed, but its less "we should treat them just as badly as minorities" and more about how we should treat minorities a million times better.
They may have "demands", but what they want more than anything is to be martyrs, and I am glad we aren't giving it to them.
ahem, "patriots." The terrorists are the BLM/federal government who want to charge(!) to graze cattle(!), and don't wantAnd let the terrorist win?
To be clear, I am talking about the Feds icing them out and slow playing it. The sherif is an idiot and no demands should be met.Either way this sheriff is actually telling the FBI to leave town and the feds to release prisoners. I mean wtf.
And let the terrorist win?
How does ANY law enforcement officer say something like this, let alone a Sheriff??? This is simply BAFFLING. And then he goes on to insinuate that releasing the two ranchers AND sending the FBI home (yes, the FBI, NOT the ILLEGAL OCCUPIERS) would be a START, as though these whiny law-breaking attention-whore man-children deserve even MORE than what their insane demands already are. "Beyond a joke" doesn't even BEGIN to describe how far beyond a joke this has gotten.http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/01/post_2.html
This is beyond a joke now.
This sheriff should be fired. Fucking embarrassing for my state of Oregon.
http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/01/post_2.html
This is beyond a joke now.
This sheriff should be fired. Fucking embarrassing for my state of Oregon.
How does ANY law enforcement officer say something like this, let alone a Sheriff??? This is simply BAFFLING. And then he goes on to insinuate that releasing the two ranchers AND sending the FBI home (yes, the FBI, NOT the ILLEGAL OCCUPIERS) would be a START, as though these whiny law-breaking attention-whore man-children deserve even MORE than what their insane demands already are. "Beyond a joke" doesn't even BEGIN to describe how far beyond a joke this has gotten.
ahem, "patriots." The terrorists are the BLM/federal government who want to charge(!) to graze cattle(!), and don't wantarsonistsranchers setting fire to federal land
/s (just in case it's not clear :X)
Edit:
To be clear, I am talking about the Feds icing them out and slow playing it. The sherif is an idiot and no demands should be met.
I don't doubt for a second this would be different if they were black / brown people. I remember driving through rural Oregon and seeing swastika tats on people with alarming frequency. but the point remains I am happy to not give the extremists exactly what they want (a bloody raid)
http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/01/post_2.html
This is beyond a joke now.
This sheriff should be fired. Fucking embarrassing for my state of Oregon.
http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/01/post_2.html
This is beyond a joke now.
This sheriff should be fired. Fucking embarrassing for my state of Oregon.
Well, the US doesn't negotiate with terrorists (lol) but apparently that's the next step here, so ...Anyone still not calling them terrorist?
This is amazing. So you're telling me that they're gonna let them win? I want to be surprised. I truly do. This must be the sheriff of Nottingham
Anyone still not calling them terrorist?
I missed something, what did the original two guys get prosecuted for? Burning land, was it theirs or something, I can't find the exact details.
Otherwise this seems so weird.
Federal authorities charged the Hammonds with arson after they set a series of fires that spread to public land. A 2001 fire accidentally burned beyond their property line, according to The New York Times. The Department of Justice says it was set to cover up an illegal deer hunt, while the men say that they were burning away an invasive plant species on their land. Years later in 2006, a burn ban was in effect while firefighters battled blazes started by a lightning storm on a hot day in August, the newspaper reported. Steven Hammond had started a back burn to prevent the blaze from destroying the familys winter feed for its cattle. It was reported by Bureau of Land Management firefighters in the area, and the Justice Department notes that they took steps to ensure their safety. It burned about an acre of public land, causing less than $1,000 in damage. Charged with a number of crimes related to arson, the father was convicted of just one count of arson while the son was convicted of two counts for the wilderness fires. The government used an anti-terrorism statute to secure its convictions.
The statute imposed a mandatory minimum sentence: 5 years imprisonment under the Orwellian-sounding Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. U.S. District Judge Michael Hogan felt that five-year sentences were grossly disproportionate and would shock his conscience, given the context of the case. He sentenced the older man to three months in federal prison and the son to concurrent one-year sentences. Those punishments inspired no radical activism.
What happened next, did. The Department of Justice appealed the sentences, won in the 9th Circuit, and is forcing the men to return to prison after they thought they had done their time. Both will now serve the mandatory-minimum sentence.
I missed something, what did the original two guys get prosecuted for? Burning land, was it theirs or something, I can't find the exact details.
Otherwise this seems so weird.
Hmmm....that makes things pretty grey for me. Not the whole locking down a federal building part, but the guys being sentenced initially and then serving their time only to be told to go back for longer. Seems a bit excessive.
Though how this current stand off has gone so long is beyond me.
? seriously? thats the solution?
Let me be lead on this
Cut power supplies
cut gas supplies
cut water supplies
cut telephone lines
install cellar signal jammer
install cordon at 200m radius with check points on the road - let nobody in
wait
arrest them as they leave on domestic terrorism charges - compromises should be pleading down to lesser trespass charges.
All sentences should include the banning of owning firearms for a 10 year period (or life)
Lets not pretend for a second that these guys care at all about those two ranchers. If their issue was Minimum Sentencing, they'd have taken over a judicial facility.
Simply baffling.
Has law enforcement commented on shutting off utilities? It seems so obvious I was wondering if they had some reason not to.
There are kids inside, aren't there?
It shouldn't. We can have a legitimate conversation about the legality of minimum sentencing laws, but the two guys being sentenced have agreed to serve their terms without protest and did not ask this militia gang to come and hold their town hostage over it. Even the townspeople who were originally protesting the resentencing of the two ranchers don't want the militia there. There's nothing grey about the laughable mess the militia has created for themselves.Hmmm....that makes things pretty grey for me.