Assholes making trouble in Oregon

[Preacher]

are you serious?

He is seriously stupid.

 

[Contumacious]

So Mr. Bundy took his case to court and lost, more than once, but is being abused by govt. terrorist..yet it is militia with weapons that are backing him..
Yet Mr. Bundy is walking free.... I wouldn't call that govt. terrorism in action...

Took the case to "court"?


HUH?


Are there any Article III Courts anywhere in the US?

Show me.


.

Courts that have been established under Article III of the Constitution, including the Supreme Court of the United States, United States Courts of Appeals, and United States District Courts, are called constitutional, or Article III, courts. Article III of the United States Constitution establishes the judicial power of the federal government

Article III Courts Law & Legal Definition

LISTEN DINGLEBERRY


ARTICLE III COURTS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE IMPARTIAL, INDEPENDENT AND FAMILIAR WITH THE US CONSTITUTION. A BULWARK OF LIBERTY.


PRESENT "JUDGES" ARE BIASED , HAVE SWORN TO SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE GARGANTUAN, WELFARE WARFARE POLICE STATE, THEY PROMOTE CORPORATISM, THEIR JOB IS TO INCREASE THE SIZE AND POWER OF GOVERNMENTS.

.

 

[SwimExpert]

You know just for the hell of it I looked up Domestic Terrorist, and even though I believe the Bundy Clan are domestic retards I can not yet call them Domestic Terrorists...

Domestic terrorism in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You should read the list of Domestic Terrorist groups.

Nonsense.

An act by an individual alone can be designated domestic terrorism – there's no 'requirement' that one belongs to a group or be 'officially recognized' as a terrorist entity.

Take it up with wikipedia and not me if you disagree with their definition.

Really, we are supposed to recognize Wikipedia on the definition of domestic terrorism?

They cite and notate the Patriot Act. Wikipedia tends to do a pretty good job at pointing out information that is not properly cited, or that isn't supported by the reference that a contributor lists. It's good enough to accept at face value. If you doubt the veracity of the statement you're welcome to dig into the statutes and share them with everyone.

Just did and now explain why none of you counter with your own link of a definition that suited you?

Simple, you could not find one!

I wasn't talking to you, I was talking to the person who is bitching about your link.

 

[jknowgood]

All we need to do is get Trump elected and he can undo the Obama disaster.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

Nonsense.

An act by an individual alone can be designated domestic terrorism – there's no 'requirement' that one belongs to a group or be 'officially recognized' as a terrorist entity.

Take it up with wikipedia and not me if you disagree with their definition.

Really, we are supposed to recognize Wikipedia on the definition of domestic terrorism?

They cite and notate the Patriot Act. Wikipedia tends to do a pretty good job at pointing out information that is not properly cited, or that isn't supported by the reference that a contributor lists. It's good enough to accept at face value. If you doubt the veracity of the statement you're welcome to dig into the statutes and share them with everyone.

Again why is it none of you are offering a link to counter the link I have provided, so i am going to do it for you and please note it is from the fucking FBI and tell them if you disagree with them!

Terrorism Definition

What the terrorist are doing at the wildlife refuge in Oregon fit the definition as presented by the FBI in the link you provided.Thank you.

Both have almsot the same exact wording, so what part was wrong with the wikipedia definition?

It seem those like you are hell bent on telling me I was wrong, and when I presented the FBI as a source all of a sudden that link was perfectly fine but the wikipedia link was bogus.

Also it seem because I am not calling the Bundy Clan a bunch of terrorists is offending some of you, and I am happy it is.

Are they criminals to me?

Yes.

Are they domestic terrorists to me?

I will let the Government first offer their evidence and I might agree.

If you disagree with my stance then I can give a flying fuck. You have your right to your opinion but you do not have the right to tell me I should change mine and if I do not then bitch and moan that the site I was using to give the definition for domestic terrorism was wrong when in fact they used almost the exact same wording as the FBI site.

I swear some of you just want to bitch and demand that others write as you want and when I ask why you did not offer a link to counter my link you never responded, and the reason to me is because you could not find one that fit your description and that is a domestic terrorist is a white person that vote gop, owns guns, and is Christian!

Now look at the wording from both sites and notice how close they are!
Evidence:

"(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; (B) appear to be intended— (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States."

Domestic terrorism in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

• Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
• Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping; and
• Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S
  
  Terrorism Definition
  
  

 

[Moonglow]

So Mr. Bundy took his case to court and lost, more than once, but is being abused by govt. terrorist..yet it is militia with weapons that are backing him..
Yet Mr. Bundy is walking free.... I wouldn't call that govt. terrorism in action...

Took the case to "court"?


HUH?


Are there any Article III Courts anywhere in the US?

Show me.


.

Courts that have been established under Article III of the Constitution, including the Supreme Court of the United States, United States Courts of Appeals, and United States District Courts, are called constitutional, or Article III, courts. Article III of the United States Constitution establishes the judicial power of the federal government

Article III Courts Law & Legal Definition

LISTEN DINGLEBERRY


ARTICLE III COURTS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE IMPARTIAL, INDEPENDENT AND FAMILIAR WITH THE US CONSTITUTION. A BULWARK OF LIBERTY.


PRESENT "JUDGES" ARE BIASED , HAVE SWORN TO SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE GARGANTUAN, WELFARE WARFARE POLICE STATE, THEY PROMOTE CORPORATISM, THEIR JOB IS TO INCREASE THE SIZE AND POWER OF GOVERNMENTS.

.

Sure Buddy......Sure.......Your weakness is believing in the right to see it your way in the first place...

 

[SwimExpert]

Took over an unoccupied log cabin in the middle of nowhere = terrorism?

It's a federal facility. You understand that, right?

You're really reaching for the sky. You understand that right?

....by calling a federal facility a federal facility?

 

[Moonglow]

Took over an unoccupied log cabin in the middle of nowhere = terrorism?

It's a federal facility. You understand that, right?

You're really reaching for the sky. You understand that right?

....by calling a federal facility a federal facility?

It is the traditional drinking day of the mason trades....

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

Nonsense.

An act by an individual alone can be designated domestic terrorism – there's no 'requirement' that one belongs to a group or be 'officially recognized' as a terrorist entity.

Take it up with wikipedia and not me if you disagree with their definition.

Really, we are supposed to recognize Wikipedia on the definition of domestic terrorism?

They cite and notate the Patriot Act. Wikipedia tends to do a pretty good job at pointing out information that is not properly cited, or that isn't supported by the reference that a contributor lists. It's good enough to accept at face value. If you doubt the veracity of the statement you're welcome to dig into the statutes and share them with everyone.

Just did and now explain why none of you counter with your own link of a definition that suited you?

Simple, you could not find one!

I wasn't talking to you, I was talking to the person who is bitching about your link.

My apology.

Really, I apologize and feel bad for the comment to you.

 

[SwimExpert]

So Mr. Bundy took his case to court and lost, more than once, but is being abused by govt. terrorist..yet it is militia with weapons that are backing him..
Yet Mr. Bundy is walking free.... I wouldn't call that govt. terrorism in action...

Took the case to "court"?


HUH?


Are there any Article III Courts anywhere in the US?

Show me.


.

Courts that have been established under Article III of the Constitution, including the Supreme Court of the United States, United States Courts of Appeals, and United States District Courts, are called constitutional, or Article III, courts. Article III of the United States Constitution establishes the judicial power of the federal government

Article III Courts Law & Legal Definition

LISTEN DINGLEBERRY


ARTICLE III COURTS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE IMPARTIAL, INDEPENDENT AND FAMILIAR WITH THE US CONSTITUTION. A BULWARK OF LIBERTY.


PRESENT "JUDGES" ARE BIASED , HAVE SWORN TO SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE GARGANTUAN, WELFARE WARFARE POLICE STATE, THEY PROMOTE CORPORATISM, THEIR JOB IS TO INCREASE THE SIZE AND POWER OF GOVERNMENTS.

.

New Years resolution to quit smoking, eh?

 

[SwimExpert]

Take it up with wikipedia and not me if you disagree with their definition.

Really, we are supposed to recognize Wikipedia on the definition of domestic terrorism?

They cite and notate the Patriot Act. Wikipedia tends to do a pretty good job at pointing out information that is not properly cited, or that isn't supported by the reference that a contributor lists. It's good enough to accept at face value. If you doubt the veracity of the statement you're welcome to dig into the statutes and share them with everyone.

Just did and now explain why none of you counter with your own link of a definition that suited you?

Simple, you could not find one!

I wasn't talking to you, I was talking to the person who is bitching about your link.

My apology.

Really, I apologize and feel bad for the comment to you.

No sweat, I wasn't offended.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I am truly sickened by the fact that people are defending terrorism based on such absurd notions as "Obama sucks" and "we needed to get attention."

And the attention is being focused on the idiocy of their 'cause.'

 

[Contumacious]

So Mr. Bundy took his case to court and lost, more than once, but is being abused by govt. terrorist..yet it is militia with weapons that are backing him..
Yet Mr. Bundy is walking free.... I wouldn't call that govt. terrorism in action...

Took the case to "court"?


HUH?


Are there any Article III Courts anywhere in the US?

Show me.


.

Courts that have been established under Article III of the Constitution, including the Supreme Court of the United States, United States Courts of Appeals, and United States District Courts, are called constitutional, or Article III, courts. Article III of the United States Constitution establishes the judicial power of the federal government

Article III Courts Law & Legal Definition

LISTEN DINGLEBERRY


ARTICLE III COURTS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE IMPARTIAL, INDEPENDENT AND FAMILIAR WITH THE US CONSTITUTION. A BULWARK OF LIBERTY.


PRESENT "JUDGES" ARE BIASED , HAVE SWORN TO SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE GARGANTUAN, WELFARE WARFARE POLICE STATE, THEY PROMOTE CORPORATISM, THEIR JOB IS TO INCREASE THE SIZE AND POWER OF GOVERNMENTS.

.

Sure Buddy......Sure.......Your weakness is believing in the right to see it your way in the first place...

YOUR WEAKNESS IS BELIEVING THAT FASCISM, GOVERNMENT SUPREMACY AND TYRANNY ARE COOL.


.

 

[Camp]

Who is regulating that militia?

 

[Moonglow]

So Mr. Bundy took his case to court and lost, more than once, but is being abused by govt. terrorist..yet it is militia with weapons that are backing him..
Yet Mr. Bundy is walking free.... I wouldn't call that govt. terrorism in action...

Took the case to "court"?


HUH?


Are there any Article III Courts anywhere in the US?

Show me.


.

Courts that have been established under Article III of the Constitution, including the Supreme Court of the United States, United States Courts of Appeals, and United States District Courts, are called constitutional, or Article III, courts. Article III of the United States Constitution establishes the judicial power of the federal government

Article III Courts Law & Legal Definition

LISTEN DINGLEBERRY


ARTICLE III COURTS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE IMPARTIAL, INDEPENDENT AND FAMILIAR WITH THE US CONSTITUTION. A BULWARK OF LIBERTY.


PRESENT "JUDGES" ARE BIASED , HAVE SWORN TO SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE GARGANTUAN, WELFARE WARFARE POLICE STATE, THEY PROMOTE CORPORATISM, THEIR JOB IS TO INCREASE THE SIZE AND POWER OF GOVERNMENTS.

.

Sure Buddy......Sure.......Your weakness is believing in the right to see it your way in the first place...

YOUR WEAKNESS IS BELIEVING THAT FASCISM, GOVERNMENT SUPREMACY AND TYRANNY ARE COOL.


.

Are you always in need of trying to put words into other peoples mouths and trying to prognosticate their fate accompli...???

 

[Contumacious]

So Mr. Bundy took his case to court and lost, more than once, but is being abused by govt. terrorist..yet it is militia with weapons that are backing him..
Yet Mr. Bundy is walking free.... I wouldn't call that govt. terrorism in action...

Took the case to "court"?


HUH?


Are there any Article III Courts anywhere in the US?

Show me.


.

Courts that have been established under Article III of the Constitution, including the Supreme Court of the United States, United States Courts of Appeals, and United States District Courts, are called constitutional, or Article III, courts. Article III of the United States Constitution establishes the judicial power of the federal government

Article III Courts Law & Legal Definition

LISTEN DINGLEBERRY


ARTICLE III COURTS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE IMPARTIAL, INDEPENDENT AND FAMILIAR WITH THE US CONSTITUTION. A BULWARK OF LIBERTY.


PRESENT "JUDGES" ARE BIASED , HAVE SWORN TO SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE GARGANTUAN, WELFARE WARFARE POLICE STATE, THEY PROMOTE CORPORATISM, THEIR JOB IS TO INCREASE THE SIZE AND POWER OF GOVERNMENTS.

.

New Years resolution to quit smoking, eh?

NEW YEARS RESOLUTION TO HIT THE BOOKS, EH?

.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

The premise of this thread is stupid

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Took over an unoccupied log cabin in the middle of nowhere = terrorism?

No different than mailing envelopes with harmless white power:

Texas man arrested in connection with white powder letter hoaxes

And just as much an act of terror.

 

[Dot Com]

11 years ago during a wildfire threatening homes, including the Hammond home. The Hammond father and son lit a backfire that saved all those homes. Now obama wants to prosecute.

Fuck that pillow lip bastard. This should light the second civil war.

So...that's how you plan on spinning this.......

She took the (rw) racist route

 

[Contumacious]

Took the case to "court"?


HUH?


Are there any Article III Courts anywhere in the US?

Show me.


.

Courts that have been established under Article III of the Constitution, including the Supreme Court of the United States, United States Courts of Appeals, and United States District Courts, are called constitutional, or Article III, courts. Article III of the United States Constitution establishes the judicial power of the federal government

Article III Courts Law & Legal Definition

LISTEN DINGLEBERRY


ARTICLE III COURTS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE IMPARTIAL, INDEPENDENT AND FAMILIAR WITH THE US CONSTITUTION. A BULWARK OF LIBERTY.


PRESENT "JUDGES" ARE BIASED , HAVE SWORN TO SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE GARGANTUAN, WELFARE WARFARE POLICE STATE, THEY PROMOTE CORPORATISM, THEIR JOB IS TO INCREASE THE SIZE AND POWER OF GOVERNMENTS.

.

Sure Buddy......Sure.......Your weakness is believing in the right to see it your way in the first place...

YOUR WEAKNESS IS BELIEVING THAT FASCISM, GOVERNMENT SUPREMACY AND TYRANNY ARE COOL.


.

Are you always in need of trying to put words into other peoples mouths and trying to prognosticate their fate accompli...???

ARE YOU ALWAYS IN NEED TO ACT AS AN APOLOGIST OF THE GARGANTUAN WELFARE/WARFARE POLICE STATE?


.