Oregon militants sit silently as furious residents shame them for ruining their community

originally posted by: TheBulk

I called them terrorists for attacking people based on their skin color and calling for murder.

Of the thousands and thousands of protesters, how many (if any) did those things you claim?

How many of the Bundy armed attack squad took over a government building to get what they want? All of them to a last man?....

But even if you were right about the BLM, why aren't you also calling out the bundy goons as terrorists?

It's plain to see why you're not....

originally posted by: TheBulk

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: TheBulk

I find it interesting how often conservatives members go out of their way to talk about BLM. Even in threads, like this one, that have nothing to do with BLM. It's almost over-the-top...

Funny, I'm not a conservative. Do you think anyone who disagrees with you is a conservative?

Anyone that views the Right media machine as being the Left is:
1. Conservative
2. Not in the loop since 2008.

It's not that what you said is an opinion, it's that it's wrong.

The unneeded comments about BLM reaffirms your incorrect stance on both situatuons.

I really wish the feds would just grow a pair, then hurry up and arrest these bunch of religious extremist nut jobs.

The only reason this situation occurred in the first place, is because the feds went soft and didn't prosecute Ammon Bundy's dad for being a free loading tax evader, when he refused to pay his dues for grazing cattle on land that doesn't belong to him.

The lack of action from the Feds is what caused the Bundy brothers to think they can get away with spiting in the face of the average American 9 to 5er (who actually pay there tax's), by demanding the government gives them a free ride.

originally posted by: TheBulk
The New Black Panthers had several open carry protests and nobody called them terrorists. Why do you think that is?

The Black Panthers????.....you're so transparent

Is there anything else that people with black skin may have done in the past 100 years that you'd like to bring up?

And is that what you're attempting to describe the armed militia takeover of a government building? an 'open carry protest'?......lol wth

These 'militia' guys just piss me off.

They have accomplished nothing except pissing off the locals who don't want them. Nothing they're doing makes sense to the environment they find themselves.

a reply to: imjack

I'm willing to bet that "libertarian" is what they would label themselves as. Disgruntled republicans changing their religion because the GOP wasn't extreme enough for them.

That being said, this new Libertarian movement loves what these protesters are doing because they truly believe they are "sticking it to the man".

In all reality, they are just being douchebags that are lucky the Feds don't just come and rip them out of there. Hell, the Branch Davidians did far less and they burnt their own church to the ground.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: imjack

I'm willing to bet that "libertarian" is what they would label themselves as. Disgruntled republicans changing their religion because the GOP wasn't extreme enough for them.

That being said, this new Libertarian movement loves what these protesters are doing because they truly believe they are "sticking it to the man".

In all reality, they are just being douchebags that are lucky the Feds don't just come and rip them out of there. Hell, the Branch Davidians did far less and they burnt their own church to the ground.

No. They label themselves Republican and use it as a strawman for arguements involving liberties.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: TheBulk

I find it interesting how often conservatives members go out of their way to talk about BLM. Even in threads, like this one, that have nothing to do with BLM. It's almost over-the-top...

Conservatives go out of their way to talk about anything.

Indoctrination has made them the bias fact-checkers for their masters. The best part of when a conservative says something is when they generally assume all other conservatives feel the same way, when they're the single most diverse group in terms of "acceptance".

There are gay conservatives.
There are conservatives that hate gays.
There are women conservatives.
And there are conservatives against more equal rights
There are black and Islamic conservatives.
There are conservatives that hate blacks and Muslims.
There are atheist conservatives.
There are bible thumpers that show clear hate for anti-faith.


Only a hypocritical fool would vote for that party and consciously proclaim it's ideals. You're only representing yourself. You're not being represented.

The issue is Republican identify loses all support once they become more specific.

a reply to: Subaeruginosa

Ammon Bundy doesn't even live on the Nevada ranch.

He lives in Arizona somewhere.

He has some kind of business that's in tax trouble.

I be the "Authorities" have blackmailed him into being a double agent.

All part of a desperate Fed smear campaign.

a reply to: imjack

Anyone that views the Right media machine as being the Left is:
1. Conservative
2. Not in the loop since 2008.

That's not true in any way shape or form. It makes more sense to say that anyone who doesn't understand conservatism is not conservative. Yourself, for instance.

People DO realize the Bundys are followers of the "Sovereign Citizen" movement particular to their brand of fringe LDS Mormonism, right? They are wealthy ranchers looking to graze their cattle for free to increase their profits for themselves and themselves only.

They have brilliantly co-opted this movement to line their own pockets. People like the Hammonds know this and have distanced themselves from this bizarre family.

First off......The protesters are within their constitutional rights to be armed.
The fact that they bear arms should not even be an issue. ALL Citizens have this right.....they have simply been conditioned to abrogate this right.

Secondly, they have threatened no one....repeat no one..... they have shown a great deal of respect to the people of Burns.

Thirdly its the federal presence which is upsetting the residents......They are expecting an eventual Waco type scenario to develop sooner or later if the occupation continues....leaving behind a devasted community.
We all know Waco was a psychological warfare act perpetrated upon the American People, to facilitate an agenda.

The act of bearing arms is nearly all we have left of the guaranteed constitutional liberties the Founding Fathers
enshrined in perpetuity, only to be rescinded by our traitors in office.......

I do not believe or trust what the news reports anymore......Social engineering is obvious in most of the governments agendas......You and your children are being manipulated into supporting something inimical to freedom of the people.

I admire the restraint which the occupiers have displayed.....including refusing to descend into a shouting match at the meeting....
I hope that those who understand what the feds are up to in Burns will not be marginalised by the agents provocateurs
set up by the federal agencies....

The psychological warfare which the Feds are engaged in against the people will be exposed sooner or later.......
I simply hope there are enough people who can see through the propaganda efforts.

Those calling for swift violent action to end the occupation have their heads where the sun don't shine....

a reply to: Leonidas

Another way of looking at it is that they are a bunch of conservatives mad at the government because the government won't give them free stuff.

a reply to: xuenchen

lol, dude that's the least ridiculous conspiracy theory I've ever heard you come up with.

Ammon Bundy is doing so much damage to the hardcore constitutionalist/anti-federal government movement atm, that being a government agent would actually make sense at this point.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Another way of looking at it is that they are a bunch of conservatives mad at the government because the government won't give them free stuff.

Sounds like a Huffpo headline.

a reply to: TheTory

Did my analysis hit a bit close to home for you? I'm sorry.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Did my analysis hit a bit close to home for you? I'm sorry.

Not really. Evidence-free analysis' are cause for humor, not alarm.

Naw.....actually we are looking for good judgement on the part of the gov......all the way back 30 years ago....and we find none.....

We do see the gov. boys want to grab some private land there with that one bit.......do you see that? Do you see it's duress........the call has been made.....we need smaller....local government.....now.....or never. You schiller types should be ashamed of yourselves....your mother wants you to do better than just letting the gov. tell you .......your mom wants to see you reveal truth.

Is occupying Federal land illegally and carrying fire arms legal?

This is Oregon state

Criminal trespass while in possession of a firearm

(1) A person commits the crime of criminal trespass while in possession of a firearm who, while in possession of a firearm, enters or remains unlawfully in or upon premises.

(2) Criminal trespass while in possession of a firearm is a Class A misdemeanor. [1979 c.603 §2]

www.oregonlaws.org...

a reply to: TheTory

But they are a bunch of conservatives looking for free stuff. I see that you aren't interested in seeing that, but it's obvious to everyone after it is pointed out. In other words, once you see it, you can't unsee it.