Meanwhile the original two. Have agreed to go back to jail peacefully. Their own relatives testified that they lit the original fires to cover up poaching. Lordy freaking sakes people.

They're horse thieves at best. Traitors at worst.

(01-03-2016 04:43 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Among those joining Bundy in the occupation are Ryan Payne, U.S. Army veteran, and Blaine Cooper. Payne has claimed to have helped organize militia snipers to target federal agents in a standoff last year in Nevada. He told one news organization the federal agents would have been killed had they made the wrong move.

He has been a steady presence in Burns in recent weeks, questioning people who were critical of the militia's presence. He typically had a holstered sidearm as he moved around the community.

He "claimed" these things and even made an on-the-record statement, but no one provided the actual statement he made. Was there context behind it or did he even say it?

Also, you conveniently left off the next sentence:

Quote:At a community meeting in Burns Friday, Payne disavowed any ill intent.

"The agenda is to uphold the Constitution. That's all," he said.

He asked what parts concerned me. We all can read the article pharaoh. I didn't conviently leave anything out.


Your first sentence makes absolutely zero sense. We all saw the pictures of the nut jobs with sniper rifles trained on the federal agents from a bridge. This guy claims he rounded those guys up. These people are traitors.

From a comment in the Oregon paper. Fits my sentiments EXACTLY!!

So, let me get this right. These guys go onto federal land, under the pretense that they actually own the land, but apparently have no title to it, no bill of sale,even from before 1917 when it was made a refuge. None of their families had a prior claim on the land. Right or wrong, the fact is, it was not their land.

They then proceeded to shoot and kill half a dozen protected deer, and according to reports, injured some more who limped away.

After that, they set the land (which was not theirs) on fire,without co-ordinating with the local authorites (fire department, park service, or anyone else).

When convicted of their crimes, some supporters then march in and occupy federal property (which, again, is not theirs).

Then they claim that the Federal Government somehow is "tyrannizing" them by intruding on their Constitutional rights.



I CANT WAIT FOR THE COMMENTS!!!!!

I mean seriously. It's like a bizzaro world. What about the Americans that support the BLM?? Protecting a resource. These fckers are horse theives and what in the hell do the Bundy's keep showing up around these things and why isn't Cliven and his kids in jail?

(01-03-2016 04:59 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  He asked what parts concerned me. We all can read the article pharaoh. I didn't conviently leave anything out.


Your first sentence makes absolutely zero sense. We all saw the pictures of the nut jobs with sniper rifles trained on the federal agents from a bridge. This guy claims he rounded those guys up. These people are traitors.

Temper, temper...

Yes, we can all read the article, but I just thought you wanted to be fair and include the full excerpt...not just half of it.

As to what I said, of course it makes sense. No one presented a quote of what he actually said. The paper is presenting their statement of what they say he said to someone else. My point is simple. (1) Did he ACTUALLY say this and (2) was it in context. We do not know because the paper does not attribute a quote.

Fair????

What part of posting "what concerns you". Do you not understand?

Those federal agents are countrymen. Husbands and fathers. I don't understand anyone defending horse thieves that have prepped their executions.

(01-03-2016 04:46 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  They're horse thieves at best. Traitors at worst.

I miss the good ole days when they'd hung the horse thieves. Life was much simpler then.

These people are terrorists by definition.


Definitions of Terrorism in the U.S. Code

18 U.S.C. § 2331 defines "international terrorism" and "domestic terrorism" for purposes of Chapter 113B of the Code, entitled "Terrorism”:

"International terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:

Involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
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
Occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S., or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum.*
"Domestic terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:

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.
18 U.S.C. § 2332b defines the term "federal crime of terrorism" as an offense that:

Is calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct; and
Is a violation of one of several listed statutes, including § 930© (relating to killing or attempted killing during an attack on a federal facility with a dangerous weapon); and § 1114 (relating to killing or attempted killing of officers and employees of the U.S.).

You can read it yourself, but these people fit the definition. Charge them with terrorism.

What claim do the Bundy's have in this land?

They are domestic terrorists plain and simple. Should be executed.

(01-03-2016 05:22 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  They are domestic terrorists plain and simple. Should be executed.

Likes I says, we'sa take 'em out an hangs 'em.

An' whiles we'se at it, let's hangs dat Bowe Bergdahl feller.

What am I missing here? Anyone care to explain to me your sympathies for these terrorists?

Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) ; 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.
18 U.S.C. § 2332b defines the term "federal crime of terrorism" as an offense that:

(01-03-2016 05:20 PM)Ole Blue Wrote:  These people are terrorists by definition.


Definitions of Terrorism in the U.S. Code

18 U.S.C. § 2331 defines "international terrorism" and "domestic terrorism" for purposes of Chapter 113B of the Code, entitled "Terrorism”:

"International terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:

Involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
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
Occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S., or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum.*
"Domestic terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:

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.
18 U.S.C. § 2332b defines the term "federal crime of terrorism" as an offense that:

Is calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct; and
Is a violation of one of several listed statutes, including § 930© (relating to killing or attempted killing during an attack on a federal facility with a dangerous weapon); and § 1114 (relating to killing or attempted killing of officers and employees of the U.S.).

You can read it yourself, but these people fit the definition. Charge them with terrorism.

LOL and

A bunch of guys took over an unoccupied ranger outpost where they have essentially been talking to media about their protest and ordering delivery food. If they had attacked a manned outpost and shot somebody, then I would be willing consider that. But, c'mon...especially since the President you support keeps calling obvious, actual terrorist attacks workplace violence.

I have seen more violence from these anti-cop protesters than these guys.

What claim do they have? What makes federal property theirs? They are inciting violence.

Doesn't appear to fit the definition to me.

And only one side can point weapons? The other must obey and be willing servants? This is kind of what that little 'ol 2nd is all about.

(01-03-2016 05:40 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  What claim do they have? What makes federal property theirs? They are inciting violence.

So did Michael Brown's father during his rant.

So did BLM chanting, "what do we want, DEAD COPS, when do we want them, NOW."

But, don't let that bother you either.