Assholes making trouble in Oregon

You just do not get it do you? How old are you?

I lived through the 60's and all the protests. They were all anti-government and while some were peaceful, there were the Bill Ayers' types as well. I liked the anti-government aspect of it. And all of these folks were Democrats. Anti-Government Democrats. Well, since then they have taken over what used to be the Democratic Party and turned it into . . . . something unrecognizable. Something that now goes out and protests for more Government. Do you not see that? Hossfly is a Vietnam Vet and I'm sure he has some stories to tell along these lines. It seems as though the Democratic party as it is today is out to get anyone who is now anti-government. The irony is palatable. And it doesn't taste good.

Now mind you, I became quite disappointed in the Republican party as well before I could legally vote. In the first presidential election I could vote in, I did not vote for either of the 'big' two. I did not vote for Reagan. Now, I try to not assume you're a Democrat, actually it doesn't mean squat to the point I'm trying to make.

All through this thread I've tried to point out the irony of the situation. All the anti-government protestors of the '60's and '70's who were and are Democrats have turned it around on us and have helped the .gov grow in so much power that it is true. Individual BLM, Fish & Wildlife, and even USFS managers can write their own rules which become as if they are public laws. They can and some do treat their administrative areas as their own fiefdom. The .gov has been given WAY too much power.

So, yes, for these folks to have pushed back and won, I say good for them. Maybe the Bundy's et al are the Democrats of the 21st century, hehe.
 
So, I suppose that it is only OK to protest or be 'anti-government' if you are Democrat?

Oh, not at all! We should give all armed Americans the right to seize government property without penalty, any time they want to!

"gubermint property" like what the BLM was trying to procure by prosecuting the Hammonds for doing a controlled burn that they had been given permission to do?

If you have ever had a moment where you thought to yourself "I really need to STFU because I am in over my head"?

This is one of those times.
 
Well, now the story is just about over now. The Bundy's got acquitted in Oregon, their case dismissed with prejudiced in Nevada and now the Hammond's have even been pardoned and released. Now we just have to see what happens with LaVoy's murder.

Who's the assholes now?

It is always uplifting to watch armed radical militia get away with anarchy and destruction of government property.

Exactly how the Country was formed. In America the government does not own property. It is allowed to manage property that belongs to the public.
 
You just do not get it do you? How old are you?

I lived through the 60's and all the protests. They were all anti-government and while some were peaceful, there were the Bill Ayers' types as well. I liked the anti-government aspect of it. And all of these folks were Democrats. Anti-Government Democrats. Well, since then they have taken over what used to be the Democratic Party and turned it into . . . . something unrecognizable. Something that now goes out and protests for more Government. Do you not see that? Hossfly is a Vietnam Vet and I'm sure he has some stories to tell along these lines. It seems as though the Democratic party as it is today is out to get anyone who is now anti-government. The irony is palatable. And it doesn't taste good.

Now mind you, I became quite disappointed in the Republican party as well before I could legally vote. In the first presidential election I could vote in, I did not vote for either of the 'big' two. I did not vote for Reagan. Now, I try to not assume you're a Democrat, actually it doesn't mean squat to the point I'm trying to make.

All through this thread I've tried to point out the irony of the situation. All the anti-government protestors of the '60's and '70's who were and are Democrats have turned it around on us and have helped the .gov grow in so much power that it is true. Individual BLM, Fish & Wildlife, and even USFS managers can write their own rules which become as if they are public laws. They can and some do treat their administrative areas as their own fiefdom. The .gov has been given WAY too much power.

So, yes, for these folks to have pushed back and won, I say good for them. Maybe the Bundy's et al are the Democrats of the 21st century, hehe.

Whatever, Ted. I go back to my original statement. It just warms the cockles of my heart to see armed archaists illegally seize and destroy government property and get away with it. That is called, "Making America Great Again".
 
Well, now the story is just about over now. The Bundy's got acquitted in Oregon, their case dismissed with prejudiced in Nevada and now the Hammond's have even been pardoned and released. Now we just have to see what happens with LaVoy's murder.

Who's the assholes now?

It is always uplifting to watch armed radical militia get away with anarchy and destruction of government property.

Exactly how the Country was formed. In America the government does not own property. It is allowed to manage property that belongs to the public.

Great! Then, I think I am going to build a cabin on my share of public land in Yellowstone Park!
 
Well, now the story is just about over now. The Bundy's got acquitted in Oregon, their case dismissed with prejudiced in Nevada and now the Hammond's have even been pardoned and released. Now we just have to see what happens with LaVoy's murder.

Who's the assholes now?

It is always uplifting to watch armed radical militia get away with anarchy and destruction of government property.

Exactly how the Country was formed. In America the government does not own property. It is allowed to manage property that belongs to the public.

Great! Then, I think I am going to build a cabin on my share of public land in Yellowstone Park!

Bad idea. The government whose ass you seem so eager to kiss might well shoot you first and ask questions later like they did with the cowboy. What illegal actions? You are disagreeing with the courts who who have have dismissed the government's charges with prejudice thereby inviting lawsuits from the private citizens it has abused. The sad thing is that the money used to pay off these suits will be tax money that came from private citizens to begin with. Robbing Peter to pay Peter.
 
You just do not get it do you? How old are you?

I lived through the 60's and all the protests. They were all anti-government and while some were peaceful, there were the Bill Ayers' types as well. I liked the anti-government aspect of it. And all of these folks were Democrats. Anti-Government Democrats. Well, since then they have taken over what used to be the Democratic Party and turned it into . . . . something unrecognizable. Something that now goes out and protests for more Government. Do you not see that? Hossfly is a Vietnam Vet and I'm sure he has some stories to tell along these lines. It seems as though the Democratic party as it is today is out to get anyone who is now anti-government. The irony is palatable. And it doesn't taste good.

Now mind you, I became quite disappointed in the Republican party as well before I could legally vote. In the first presidential election I could vote in, I did not vote for either of the 'big' two. I did not vote for Reagan. Now, I try to not assume you're a Democrat, actually it doesn't mean squat to the point I'm trying to make.

All through this thread I've tried to point out the irony of the situation. All the anti-government protestors of the '60's and '70's who were and are Democrats have turned it around on us and have helped the .gov grow in so much power that it is true. Individual BLM, Fish & Wildlife, and even USFS managers can write their own rules which become as if they are public laws. They can and some do treat their administrative areas as their own fiefdom. The .gov has been given WAY too much power.

So, yes, for these folks to have pushed back and won, I say good for them. Maybe the Bundy's et al are the Democrats of the 21st century, hehe.

Whatever, Ted. I go back to my original statement. It just warms the cockles of my heart to see armed archaists illegally seize and destroy government property and get away with it. That is called, "Making America Great Again".


LMAO! You are SOOO fucking clueless.......ignorance is bliss and you are one happy motherfucker! LOL!!!!!!
 
Well, now the story is just about over now. The Bundy's got acquitted in Oregon, their case dismissed with prejudiced in Nevada and now the Hammond's have even been pardoned and released. Now we just have to see what happens with LaVoy's murder.

Who's the assholes now?

It is always uplifting to watch armed radical militia get away with anarchy and destruction of government property.

Exactly how the Country was formed. In America the government does not own property. It is allowed to manage property that belongs to the public.

Great! Then, I think I am going to build a cabin on my share of public land in Yellowstone Park!

Bad idea. The government whose ass you seem so eager to kiss might well shoot you first and ask questions later like they did with the cowboy. What illegal actions? You are disagreeing with the courts who who have have dismissed the government's charges with prejudice thereby inviting lawsuits from the private citizens it has abused. The sad thing is that the money used to pay off these suits will be tax money that came from private citizens to begin with. Robbing Peter to pay Peter.

If our totalitarian government will shoot me for building a cabin in Yellowstone National Park public land, then I say, "UP THE REVOLUTION!" You have nothing to lose but your chains! (Karl Marx)
 
after releasing a grainy and highly edited video from a drone

the sheriffs department says it will be another 4 weeks before the rest of the audio

and video including cox cell phone audio in which she says

the cops had been firing on the truck prior to lavoy existing the vehicle with his hands up
The guy wanted to die and he got what he wanted. The others, who turned themselves in, walked along their vehicle and never lowered their hands until they were in police custody.

Not Lavoy. Lavoy said he would not be taken alive. It was his choice to die because he preferred death than being in a "concrete box." His words.

He tried to escape from the FBI & OSP. That attempt failed him when he got his vehicle stuck in the snow. It was then he decided he would get himself killed. He would not be taken alive; he would get himself shot by police. So instead of walking along the vehicle to the police like the others, Finicum trotted away from the vehicle and towards the woods. Not to escape. Not to turn himself in. To clear the vehicle where others were still inside. He wanted police to shoot him but not near the others where they could get hurt. He wanted the police to shoot him dead but didn't want anyone else with him get injured because of his choice to avoid going to jail. So he kept his hands up so police wouldn't shoot until he cleared the vehicle. While shouting at police to shoot him -- he lowered his hands in a threatening motion to go for his gun, knowing full well the consequences of that action.

That's what he wanted.

That's what he got.

That's what can be seen on the video released by the FBI and no other video will show it any differently.
I already posted that assisted suicide by a physician is the only legal assisted suicide in Oregon. So the murder is illegal assisted suicide. Hmmmmmmmmm, murder is murder.
Are you fucking retarded?
no, of late I'm not fking at the moment. I am, however, posting in a forum full of libturds who know very little about threats. And those said libturds not able to post up valid factual information.


well you do seem to have a dbl standard as to when cops can kill people,,,

I just hope that reason isnt about skin color
 
after releasing a grainy and highly edited video from a drone

the sheriffs department says it will be another 4 weeks before the rest of the audio

and video including cox cell phone audio in which she says

the cops had been firing on the truck prior to lavoy existing the vehicle with his hands up
The guy wanted to die and he got what he wanted. The others, who turned themselves in, walked along their vehicle and never lowered their hands until they were in police custody.

Not Lavoy. Lavoy said he would not be taken alive. It was his choice to die because he preferred death than being in a "concrete box." His words.

He tried to escape from the FBI & OSP. That attempt failed him when he got his vehicle stuck in the snow. It was then he decided he would get himself killed. He would not be taken alive; he would get himself shot by police. So instead of walking along the vehicle to the police like the others, Finicum trotted away from the vehicle and towards the woods. Not to escape. Not to turn himself in. To clear the vehicle where others were still inside. He wanted police to shoot him but not near the others where they could get hurt. He wanted the police to shoot him dead but didn't want anyone else with him get injured because of his choice to avoid going to jail. So he kept his hands up so police wouldn't shoot until he cleared the vehicle. While shouting at police to shoot him -- he lowered his hands in a threatening motion to go for his gun, knowing full well the consequences of that action.

That's what he wanted.

That's what he got.

That's what can be seen on the video released by the FBI and no other video will show it any differently.
I already posted that assisted suicide by a physician is the only legal assisted suicide in Oregon. So the murder is illegal assisted suicide. Hmmmmmmmmm, murder is murder.
Are you fucking retarded?
no, of late I'm not fking at the moment. I am, however, posting in a forum full of libturds who know very little about threats. And those said libturds not able to post up valid factual information.


well you do seem to have a dbl standard as to when cops can kill people,,,

I just hope that reason isnt about skin color
cops can shoot people in quite a few scenarios. you seem to think that's odd. funny. Again, I asked you, what is it I'm not consistent with? Like for like scenarios or different scenarios with similar conclusions?
 
The guy wanted to die and he got what he wanted. The others, who turned themselves in, walked along their vehicle and never lowered their hands until they were in police custody.

Not Lavoy. Lavoy said he would not be taken alive. It was his choice to die because he preferred death than being in a "concrete box." His words.

He tried to escape from the FBI & OSP. That attempt failed him when he got his vehicle stuck in the snow. It was then he decided he would get himself killed. He would not be taken alive; he would get himself shot by police. So instead of walking along the vehicle to the police like the others, Finicum trotted away from the vehicle and towards the woods. Not to escape. Not to turn himself in. To clear the vehicle where others were still inside. He wanted police to shoot him but not near the others where they could get hurt. He wanted the police to shoot him dead but didn't want anyone else with him get injured because of his choice to avoid going to jail. So he kept his hands up so police wouldn't shoot until he cleared the vehicle. While shouting at police to shoot him -- he lowered his hands in a threatening motion to go for his gun, knowing full well the consequences of that action.

That's what he wanted.

That's what he got.

That's what can be seen on the video released by the FBI and no other video will show it any differently.
I already posted that assisted suicide by a physician is the only legal assisted suicide in Oregon. So the murder is illegal assisted suicide. Hmmmmmmmmm, murder is murder.
Are you fucking retarded?
no, of late I'm not fking at the moment. I am, however, posting in a forum full of libturds who know very little about threats. And those said libturds not able to post up valid factual information.


well you do seem to have a dbl standard as to when cops can kill people,,,

I just hope that reason isnt about skin color
cops can shoot people in quite a few scenarios. you seem to think that's odd. funny. Again, I asked you, what is it I'm not consistent with? Like for like scenarios or different scenarios with similar conclusions?
now youre just being an asshole,,,

I laid it out in detail on two different threads,,,and you chose to ignore both of them,,,
 
I already posted that assisted suicide by a physician is the only legal assisted suicide in Oregon. So the murder is illegal assisted suicide. Hmmmmmmmmm, murder is murder.
Are you fucking retarded?
no, of late I'm not fking at the moment. I am, however, posting in a forum full of libturds who know very little about threats. And those said libturds not able to post up valid factual information.


well you do seem to have a dbl standard as to when cops can kill people,,,

I just hope that reason isnt about skin color
cops can shoot people in quite a few scenarios. you seem to think that's odd. funny. Again, I asked you, what is it I'm not consistent with? Like for like scenarios or different scenarios with similar conclusions?
now youre just being an asshole,,,

I laid it out in detail on two different threads,,,and you chose to ignore both of them,,,
nope, you're lying. I answered every post of yours. you should go read.
 
It is always uplifting to watch armed radical militia get away with anarchy and destruction of government property.
All the 'peaceful protests' in Portland, Oregon had me thinking about this thread. How everyone from the Governor on down wanted blood. Including many posters here who live in Portland. Oh the irony.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top