Oregon protest leader Ammon Bundy is arrested, says source

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

originally posted by: GeisterFahrer

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

originally posted by: diggindirt
a reply to: onequestion

They watch the pretty girls on tv turning up their noses at those awful, scary guns. They are msm addicts. It shows. Just like you can tell a meth addict by their teeth, you tell the msm addicts by the talking points. CNN or MSNBC said so and how dare you say otherwise?!

That's where you lose all credibility, by claiming a book can be judge by its cover... you are the one who has actually been hoodwinked here.

In reality, some of the most scamming & untrustworthy "methheads" on earth, have a perfect set of teeth. Also, plenty of the people who actually care about freedom & the rights of the people as a whole, are incredibility passionate about common sense gun reform.

Either way, if you actually did have any kind of skill at reading human intentions, then you would realize that the Bundy's are nothing more than a bunch of freeloaders who want to increase their bottom line by grazing on land that does not belong to them.

The blatant ignorance of anyone who thinks that because they wear cowboy hats, own guns and constantly rant on about the constitution, that they must obviously have your best interest in mind... lol, you've been played like a fine violin.

Did any of the Malheur Occupiers shoot the police?

Do you mean to say, did any of them actually have the minerals to stand for what they claimed to stand for... because in that case, no they didn't.

They where not freedom fighters, they where merely weak minded individuals, with a delusional perception of self entitlement.

ok, thank you. none of them shot at the police.

So, did the police shoot at any of the protesters? Apparently, you think weak minded individuals should be given an immediate death sentence, which kind of makes you weak minded.

a reply to: DelMarvel

So your interpreting taken as stolen?

Guess you know where you went wrong now don't you?

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: Phage

As usual Phage you have nothing of use to add just miserable logic.

Yeah, the logical frame of mind always seems to get in the way of illogical idealism.

a reply to: GeisterFahrer

Keep toting that goal post down the field!

Do you understand that you can't just rephrase other's arguments to fit yours?

Quote me saying that the FBI is above framing people.

As far as assaulting officers with the truck ... one of the officers nearly died trying to avoid the vehicle speeding at his position ... I'd be willing to guess that Finicum wasn't avoiding anything ... he was actually targetting that officer as he "swerved."

Seriously, quote what I say, or what someone else says that you want to quibble with ... or not.

IF not, this is getting boring for me and embarrassing for you.

a reply to: onequestion

And then provided the end user with a link to Genie Energies website stating that they are in business with the BLM?

And you don't see a problem with that right?

Is it different than being in business with the Bundys? They do have a contract afterall.

But I must apologize, I do not recall you speaking of theft by the BLM. Though others have, I am not one to engage in accusations of guilt by association.

a reply to: Subaeruginosa

By illogical idealism your talking about my suggestion that there might be some corrupt practices employed by the BLM to grow their budget?

Yup.. Illogical alright! Especially when there is actual evidence to support that THEORY!

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: Subaeruginosa

By illogical idealism your talking about my suggestion that there might be some corrupt practices employed by the BLM to grow their budget?

Yup.. Illogical alright! Especially when there is actual evidence to support that THEORY!

Can you share that evidence? Since you've been researching it for months?

That seems to be what folks are asking you for ...

a reply to: Phage

If your willing to apologize then I'm more than willing to accept!

We're not barbarians after all. Only in the gym...

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: GeisterFahrer

Keep toting that goal post down the field!

Do you understand that you can't just rephrase other's arguments to fit yours?

Quote me saying that the FBI is above framing people.

As far as assaulting officers with the truck ... one of the officers nearly died trying to avoid the vehicle speeding at his position ... I'd be willing to guess that Finicum wasn't avoiding anything ... he was actually targetting that officer as he "swerved."

Seriously, quote what I say, or what someone else says that you want to quibble with ... or not.

IF not, this is getting boring for me and embarrassing for you.

So you agree that the FBI is not above framing people?

What goal post? the one you made up in your delusional mind? the whole Bundy thing seemed really, really stupid to me at first. Now I can understand why they were there. The Hammonds and the heavy handedness of an over reaching government. Its clear as a bell now.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Oh god reread the threads from the start and formulate your own conclusions.

Here's a hint...

Mineral rights, water rights, 2 ww2 vets with a 40 million dollar gold mine on their property, the fact that the Feds own almost all of the northwestern United States, uranium, genie energy.

I mean damn dude how many times do people need to reiterate this information on how many threads before you'll take it into account?

The writing is on the wall.

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: Subaeruginosa

By illogical idealism your talking about my suggestion that there might be some corrupt practices employed by the BLM to grow their budget?

Likewise with the Bundy's though, yeah?

Seems like everyone is out "to grow there budget".

a reply to: Subaeruginosa

I've never said the bundies are faultless. I just don't know enough about them to know.

I did however spend some valuable time looking into the BLM and I think these cowboys for that.

I consider the Bundiss much less of a threat than the federal government and the growing police state.

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: Subaeruginosa

I've never said the bundies are faultless. I just don't know enough about them to know.

I did however spend some valuable time looking into the BLM and I think these cowboys for that.

I consider the Bundiss much less of a threat than the federal government and the growing police state.

On that we both agree.

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: DelMarvel

So your interpreting taken as stolen?

Guess you know where you went wrong now don't you?

Let's see. The actual word I used was "seize." I believe that is close to if not completely synonymous with "take" in the way that you used it. As in the BLM "takes" land to rent to Genie and that the BLM uses "mafia tactics to extort resource rich land."

Also note that you didn't question what word I was using until you were unable to produce evidence.

Anyway, I made a good faith effort to look into this and I'm finished.

a reply to: DelMarvel

Evidence of what? The BLM bullying land owners into selling their property?

Apparently you didn't see the video of the BLM employees celebrating their victories in battle.

I understand you want taken and seize to mean the same thing but that just isn't true.

a reply to: onequestion

The Bundy clan went about it the wrong way though dude.

All they've accomplished is taking public scrutiny away from the BLM and putting it on the Bundy Militia.

Cliven Bundy is also an idiot... if he didn't agree with paying to graze federal property, then he shouldn't have used it for profit in the first place.

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: Gryphon66

Oh god reread the threads from the start and formulate your own conclusions.

Here's a hint...

Mineral rights, water rights, 2 ww2 vets with a 40 million dollar gold mine on their property, the fact that the Feds own almost all of the northwestern United States, uranium, genie energy.

I mean damn dude how many times do people need to reiterate this information on how many threads before you'll take it into account?

The writing is on the wall.

I have read the threads. I have formed my conclusions.

My conclusion is that you make statements that are unfounded, when asked for the evidence you claimed to have gathered, you suggest that others go research for themselves.

How many times do you need to provide this evidence that you allude to and never reveal?

How about "once"?

a reply to: Subaeruginosa

I'm sure there are better ways to have gone about it but I bet you many more Americans are well aware of some of these issues now.

As for the grazing issue I'm on the fence. I just don't really know enough about it.

I really don't see an issue with cows eating plants on land no one uses, but like I said I don't know it's got to be more complicated than that.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Man statements are not unfounded because you choose to deny the evidence that everyone else has been looking at.

It's called denial.

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: Gryphon66

Man statements are not unfounded because you choose to deny the evidence that everyone else has been looking at.

It's called denial.

No, but your statements of what is true are unfounded without evidence to back them up ... and you have yet to provide anything.

I agree that there's denial involved, Cleopatra.