How long before it's us?

[GraphicGr8s]

I believe these extremists have made a tactical error in their choice of a wildlife refuge for their occupation.


Right now it is very cold at the refuge, and snow covers the ground. All they really have to do is turn off the power to the park buildings. Then close the road. The idiots can leave whenever they want, but they cannot go back in until the situation is over. They can be arrested later.

It wasn't very well planned by any means.

As for just turning out the power and waiting where is the drama in that? The feds need the drama. Maybe they'll go in guns blazing. Another Waco. Or Kent State.

[BillT]

The Hammonds are doing the right wing thing and making stuff up. They were convicted in court of setting the fire in question to cover up their poaching of dear on the federal land.
The fire threatened endangered wildlife and the lives of firemen who had to deal with the mess they created on land belonging to EVERYONE in the country.

The land was never the state's land! This argument is stupid. Learn some history! It was federal land before the states were created from territories. The Fed's never gave it to the states. You can argue maybe they should have but that is a different argument.
Before that it was the indian's land. Bet they won't be giving it back to them!


The current "occupation" is causing the local schools to be closed.
It has almost no support in the county.
The best thing they are doing is showing the country how pathetic they and their self-serving beliefs really are.

Are people really supposed to say "Oh yes, loud guys with guns. Please take this land the country has decided to to use for this purpose, ignore all wildlife protections, don't worry about the expenses the country is paying to maintain the place, just take it and spoil it so you can make some pathetic profit for yourself and screw everyone else"?

IF it were a bunch of armed black guys, I bet you would be singing a different tune.

If these guys were so into the constitution, why are they using constitutional procedures to change things instead of being low life law breakers?
Partake in elections, change laws, try convincing people without waving your stupid guns around. Their idea of constitutionalism is a farce to hid their self serving greed!

[ghonk]

IF it were a bunch of armed black guys, I bet you would be singing a different tune.

Exactly,it would be there they go again thinking they don't have to follow the laws,and they think they can do whatever they want, break out the apache helicopters and teach  them a lesson.

[BallAquatics]

Your statement about no fly would have also left your beloved senator Ted Kennedy unable to purchase a gun. He was also on the no fly list as are many others wrongly placed there.

My beloved.....  LOL  I rest my case.

http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2015/oct/05/jeremy-bird/jeremy-bird-says-90-percent-americans-want-mandatohttp://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2015/oct/05/jeremy-bird/jeremy-bird-says-90-percent-americans-want-mandato/

Like I said before, I listened to the whole talk.  I didn't hear the President make any wild claims or say anything that wasn't true.

I've been an avid outdoors man all my life.  That's how I was brought up.  I own many firearms including a highly modified assault rifle.  I have no intention of giving up my guns, but if you actually listened to what the President said, he said nothing about gun control or taking away our rights to own firearms.

Dennis

[GraphicGr8s]

The Hammonds are doing the right wing thing and making stuff up. They were convicted in court of setting the fire in question to cover up their poaching of dear on the federal land.
The fire threatened endangered wildlife and the lives of firemen who had to deal with the mess they created on land belonging to EVERYONE in the country.

The land was never the state's land! This argument is stupid. Learn some history! It was federal land before the states were created from territories. The Fed's never gave it to the states. You can argue maybe they should have but that is a different argument.
Before that it was the indian's land. Bet they won't be giving it back to them!


The current "occupation" is causing the local schools to be closed.
It has almost no support in the county.
The best thing they are doing is showing the country how pathetic they and their self-serving beliefs really are.

Are people really supposed to say "Oh yes, loud guys with guns. Please take this land the country has decided to to use for this purpose, ignore all wildlife protections, don't worry about the expenses the country is paying to maintain the place, just take it and spoil it so you can make some pathetic profit for yourself and screw everyone else"?

IF it were a bunch of armed black guys, I bet you would be singing a different tune.

If these guys were so into the constitution, why are they using constitutional procedures to change things instead of being low life law breakers?
Partake in elections, change laws, try convincing people without waving your stupid guns around. Their idea of constitutionalism is a farce to hid their self serving greed!

Why did Hammonds start the fires? According to court documents, the 2001 ?Hardie-Hammond? fire was set under a long-standing plan between Hammonds and their BLM range conservationist to burn off invasive species on that section. They had called the BLM at noon that day to see if burning was permitted. After being told there was no burn ban in effect, the Hammonds told the BLM that they would be setting a fire on that section.

The fire later spread to approximately 139 acres of public land, land that happened to be one of Hammond?s grazing allotments. The Hammonds presented evidence that the spread onto public land was not intentional. However, back in 1999, a similar scenario had occurred (a prescribed burn on their land spread to public land), and the Hammonds had been warned that they would face serious consequences should it happen again. As an aside, according to the BLM itself, the 2001 Hardie-Hammond fire had, in fact, ?improved range conditions? on the public lands.

Bill, there were errors on both sides. was it arson? I don't know. No one really knows. And if you ever look at trials the only "truth" that comes out is the truth the better lawyer wants to come out. And face it, the Fed can always get better lawyers since they are paying for it with our money.

Charging them with terrorism though was a bit far fetched.

"For these actions, they were sentenced to a year in jail, which possibly was appropriate, considering they endangered people?s lives. But the federal government, citing an anti-terrorism law that sets a mandatory minimum sentence of five years for arson on federal land, demanded that they be re-sentenced. Having already served the first year, they were scheduled to be re-incarcerated for four more years after the new year."

Again, Bill, my other half is a minority. A legal immigrant. Might want to think about your remarks before you put them on the net.

[Mugwump]

The Hammonds are doing the right wing thing and making stuff up. They were convicted in court of setting the fire in question to cover up their poaching of dear on the federal land.
The fire threatened endangered wildlife and the lives of firemen who had to deal with the mess they created on land belonging to EVERYONE in the country.

The land was never the state's land! This argument is stupid. Learn some history! It was federal land before the states were created from territories. The Fed's never gave it to the states. You can argue maybe they should have but that is a different argument.
Before that it was the indian's land. Bet they won't be giving it back to them!


The current "occupation" is causing the local schools to be closed.
It has almost no support in the county.
The best thing they are doing is showing the country how pathetic they and their self-serving beliefs really are.

Are people really supposed to say "Oh yes, loud guys with guns. Please take this land the country has decided to to use for this purpose, ignore all wildlife protections, don't worry about the expenses the country is paying to maintain the place, just take it and spoil it so you can make some pathetic profit for yourself and screw everyone else"?

IF it were a bunch of armed black guys, I bet you would be singing a different tune.

If these guys were so into the constitution, why are they using constitutional procedures to change things instead of being low life law breakers?
Partake in elections, change laws, try convincing people without waving your stupid guns around. Their idea of constitutionalism is a farce to hid their self serving greed!

Why did Hammonds start the fires? According to court documents, the 2001 ?Hardie-Hammond? fire was set under a long-standing plan between Hammonds and their BLM range conservationist to burn off invasive species on that section. They had called the BLM at noon that day to see if burning was permitted. After being told there was no burn ban in effect, the Hammonds told the BLM that they would be setting a fire on that section.

The fire later spread to approximately 139 acres of public land, land that happened to be one of Hammond?s grazing allotments. The Hammonds presented evidence that the spread onto public land was not intentional. However, back in 1999, a similar scenario had occurred (a prescribed burn on their land spread to public land), and the Hammonds had been warned that they would face serious consequences should it happen again. As an aside, according to the BLM itself, the 2001 Hardie-Hammond fire had, in fact, ?improved range conditions? on the public lands.

Bill, there were errors on both sides. was it arson? I don't know. No one really knows. And if you ever look at trials the only "truth" that comes out is the truth the better lawyer wants to come out. And face it, the Fed can always get better lawyers since they are paying for it with our money.

Charging them with terrorism though was a bit far fetched.

"For these actions, they were sentenced to a year in jail, which possibly was appropriate, considering they endangered people?s lives. But the federal government, citing an anti-terrorism law that sets a mandatory minimum sentence of five years for arson on federal land, demanded that they be re-sentenced. Having already served the first year, they were scheduled to be re-incarcerated for four more years after the new year."

Again, Bill, my other half is a minority. A legal immigrant. Might want to think about your remarks before you put them on the net.

I think if you'll do bit more research, you'll find that they set fires more than once....but only care to refer to the one where they had permission....it's the others that were witnessed by a whole fire brigade, and others, that got them in trouble.........

ps....caps/ large print/ bold type....WOW ...that's a lot of screaming.....wake any neighbors yet?.....LOL......

[Mugwump]

Enraged Birders To Retake Oregon Wildlife Refuge In Dawn Offensive


Birders preparing to recapture the Oregon wildlife refuge.



[Burns, OR] The armed militants who have occupied the Oregon wildlife refuge may be encouraged the apparent lack of response by government authorities. But their stand is reportedly doomed anyway, since they picked the worst possible location to make their point, according to a source at the American Birding Association.

?The Malheur sanctuary is home to approximately 320 avian species beloved by birders. BIG mistake.?

The nearby town of Burns has seen a rapid influx of birders who are determined to eject the illegal occupiers. The birders possess a number of advantages when it comes to combat in open terrain, according to those familiar with the hobby.

?They are masters of disguise who know how to blend into the outdoor environment, whereas the enemy, with their pickups, massive guns, and loud obnoxious personalities, tend to stick out like a sore thumb.?

The birders are also exceptionally skilled at spotting the enemy first so they will have the full advantage of surprise, and their uniform of loose fitting garments and comfortable walking shoes means they are quick and light on their feet, much like the Viet Cong during the Vietnam war. They are also equally ruthless when pushed.

?Just try referring to them as bird watchers instead of birders and see what happens. I guarantee that you will never do it again.?

The self-described patriots? assault rifles and armored vests will be of little protection against their ornithological foe.

?Before you even know what?s happened they sneak up behind you and clobber you with a sturdy walking cane or large-caliber spotting scope.?

It?s possible the birders will adopt an extended siege strategy, which they would undoubtedly win due to their ability to live off nuts and berries, whereas the militants have already put out a desperate call for snacks. But those close to the birders think that unlikely.

?The birders are angry, and they want blood.?

http://www.breakingburgh.com/enraged-birders-to-retake-oregon-wildlife-refuge-in-dawn-offensive/

[BillT]

The Birders!
No wonder those clowns needed to bring along their guns!

G: Too bad you have no idea about what your screaming about. You should listen to the country DA, not Faux News.

[GraphicGr8s]

I know exactly what I am "screaming" about. Looking back over previous discussion Bill I realize if I don't highlight which parts of your statements I am referring to you lose track. I do it simply to help you. I am after all a very considerate person Bill.

BTW Bill, as I... Bill, over here, focus now, Bill. BILL FOCUS...anyway as I have said before, Bill, FOCUS BILL, I don't watch Fox News Bill.

[Mugwump]

I know exactly what I am "screaming" about. Looking back over previous discussion Bill I realize if I don't highlight which parts of your statements I am referring to you lose track. I do it simply to help you. I am after all a very considerate person Bill.

BTW Bill, as I... Bill, over here, focus now, Bill. BILL FOCUS...anyway as I have said before, Bill, FOCUS BILL, I don't watch Fox News Bill.

what? 

[BillT]

I don't watch Fox News Bill

What?
You make that stuff up all by yourself?

[GraphicGr8s]

I don't watch Fox News Bill

What?
You make that stuff up all by yourself?

Unlike you Bill I keep an open mind. I have not been brainwashed by the liberal media and think for myself after due diligence.

Bill, have you watched the Nova episode Extreme Cave Diving? Where they dive into a blue hole in the Bahamas and cut off a stalagmite then cut it in half and analyze it for climate changes? Where they theorize that in the past, pre human, temps rose a lot in about 50 years?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MB80mFnc77g

[Mugwump]

[Mugwump]

[Mugwump]

Obama Continues to Stubbornly Link Gun Violence with Guns



WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)?Republican Presidential candidates ripped President Obama on Tuesday for what they called his stubborn insistence on linking gun violence with guns.

In campaign stops across Iowa and New Hampshire, the G.O.P. hopefuls pounded the President for irrationally concluding that guns have played a role in the nation?s epidemic of mass shootings.

?How any reasonable person could look at gun violence and say that guns are involved is beyond me,? said Texas Senator Ted Cruz. ?And yet, somehow, President Obama always finds a way.?

?I would very much like to have a conversation about gun violence, as President Obama has said he wants to have,? said Florida Senator Marco Rubio. ?But as long as he keeps falling back on this tired, unproven connection between gun violence and guns, there?s just no point.?

The former Hewlett-Packard C.E.O. Carly Fiorina said that Obama?s persistent linking of gun violence with guns was ?sad but not surprising, from a man who believes that people?s health can be improved by access to health care.?

?He isn?t thinking straight,? she said.

Of all the candidates, though, the retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson was perhaps the most scathing in his assessment of the President?s remarks. ?Even if every gun in the world suddenly disappeared, there would still be gun violence,? he said.