It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Cliven Bundy Is On His Way To Oregon And He’s Not Going Alone

page: 7
30
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 01:05 PM
link   
a reply to: TheBadCabbie

Problem is at the first stop they didn't shoot at him even the driver of the jeep confirmed that. We can play what ifs doesn't change the facts. He should have waited for arrest like the other vehicle and he would be alive.
edit on 2/10/16 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 01:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheBadCabbie

originally posted by: LordSnow21


What about the large mining companies that will dig a three mile wide hole to get some uranium or gold out of the ground? Shouldn't the feds protect the land from that sort of raping, as well?



What if they shot at him at the first stop, as the eyewitnesses claim? How could you have any reasonable expectation of the rule of law prevailing, after that?


i agree whole heartedly, there should be more restrictions. i understand that farmers need to farm and miners need to mine, but they ought to do it on unprotected private land

as far as finicum is concerned, first of all, the instant finicum began accelerating away from roadblock A he gave law enforcment a legitimate reason to shoot. also, given that EVERYONE else who calmly surrendered survived, it's clear they werent in any danger until finicum decided to run.

second, who are these eyewitnesses? if they were finicums fellow insurgents i'm not in any way interested in their account of the event.

police never release video so fast as they did this time. historically, unless it shows exactly what they say it shows they tend to fight tooth and nail to withhold video. i get that this is a conspiracy site, but sometimes things are actually just as they appear.
edit on 10-2-2016 by LordSnow21 because: added

edit on 10-2-2016 by LordSnow21 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 01:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheBadCabbie

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: TheBadCabbie

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: TheBadCabbie

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

So many emotions yet so little substance!

Can't attack the argument so immediately attack the individual!


Oh come off it. Cliven Bundy is a racist - his own damn words condemn him as a racist. Remember that interview he gave before the cameras, in which he said that African-Americans were better off when they were slaves? After that even the GOP ran a mile rather than offer their support.
As for this wildlife fiasco - the locals want them gone. My wife's from Oregon, she knows people in the area and they are all adamant on one thing - that the last whackdoodles need to get the hell out. They have no place there, they are not wanted and the Hammonds (about whom this was all originally about) want nothing to do with them. They're only still there because they want the nasty old FBI to stop being mean by threatening to prosecute them on eleventy billion charges of being idiots on Federal property.

I think you should come off of it. If you get anyone talking about the issue of race, you can take their words and twist them around to make them look like a racist. You know what I'm talking about. It actually happened to me about a month ago, and I'm about as far from racist as you can get. Unless you have some actual evidence of Cliven Bundy actually being a racist, then, you should pick your insults more carefully. If you want them to actually carry any weight, that is. Or not, as you prefer. Just don't expect me to take you seriously, when you just yell "racist whackdoodles!" and your wife is from Oregon (hehe, she's probably from Portland), and act as if that settles the issue. Substance. Bring some substantive arguments, or don't expect to be taken seriously, at least not by me.


Hood River actually, and her father was a farmer way South of Portland. And by the way - here's Cliven Bundy being a racist.

I can see him speaking ignorantly in a sort of rant that undoubtedly has been used to cast him as a racist; but, has he actually expressed hate for african americans or other minorities, or has he just made ignorant statements such as these? And what about his sons? Does it necessarily follow that his sons must be racist, because their father has been labeled as one? Are you saying, then, that the occupation was a "whites only" party, or something like that?


Ammon Bundy seems to be more media-savvy than his father. What Ammon's views are I'm not sure. He certainly seems to have realised that after his father made those nonsensical and racist statements then even Faux News dropped him like a hot potato, as did the GOP.

Sure, but what I see Cliven saying here, though ignorant, is not necessarily racist. It's ignorant, for sure, and there are plenty of people who would see it and say "That man's a racist!", but it's not really a racist statement. It's an ignorant, idiotic even, way to go about lamenting the disempowering nature of government subsidies. I can't call it a racist comment though, not if I'm being honest. I could if I were trying to be politically correct, but that wouldn't be an honest assessment, in my opinion. Are there any more? There's gotta be more racist Cliven, right? Or is that it?


He wondered if 'the Negro' was better off under slavery. That's so far beyond ignorance and into racism that I barely know where to start.



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 01:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: TheBadCabbie

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: TheBadCabbie

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

So many emotions yet so little substance!

Can't attack the argument so immediately attack the individual!


Oh come off it. Cliven Bundy is a racist - his own damn words condemn him as a racist. Remember that interview he gave before the cameras, in which he said that African-Americans were better off when they were slaves? After that even the GOP ran a mile rather than offer their support.
As for this wildlife fiasco - the locals want them gone. My wife's from Oregon, she knows people in the area and they are all adamant on one thing - that the last whackdoodles need to get the hell out. They have no place there, they are not wanted and the Hammonds (about whom this was all originally about) want nothing to do with them. They're only still there because they want the nasty old FBI to stop being mean by threatening to prosecute them on eleventy billion charges of being idiots on Federal property.

I think you should come off of it. If you get anyone talking about the issue of race, you can take their words and twist them around to make them look like a racist. You know what I'm talking about. It actually happened to me about a month ago, and I'm about as far from racist as you can get. Unless you have some actual evidence of Cliven Bundy actually being a racist, then, you should pick your insults more carefully. If you want them to actually carry any weight, that is. Or not, as you prefer. Just don't expect me to take you seriously, when you just yell "racist whackdoodles!" and your wife is from Oregon (hehe, she's probably from Portland), and act as if that settles the issue. Substance. Bring some substantive arguments, or don't expect to be taken seriously, at least not by me.


Hood River actually, and her father was a farmer way South of Portland. And by the way - here's Cliven Bundy being a racist.

I can see him speaking ignorantly in a sort of rant that undoubtedly has been used to cast him as a racist; but, has he actually expressed hate for african americans or other minorities, or has he just made ignorant statements such as these? And what about his sons? Does it necessarily follow that his sons must be racist, because their father has been labeled as one? Are you saying, then, that the occupation was a "whites only" party, or something like that?


Yes they are a right wing organization and yes a lot of their members are white supremists. Even in rally's you can see that confederate flag fly. They even came to the defense of the confetate flag saying it was a symbol of freedom yeah right.

thefreethoughtproject.com...

ladylibertyslamp.wordpress.com...

What about the occupiers who weren't white? Doesn't that sort of debunk your claim that this was a white supremacist operation? I know some of the militia types are racist, it doesn't mean that this occupation was. Furthermore, what does "right wing" have to do with racism? Methinks you cast a net that is too wide, here.



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 01:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: TheBadCabbie

Problem is at the first stop they didn't shoot at him even the driver of the jeep confirmed that. We can play what ifs doesn't change the facts. He should have waited for arrest like the other vehicle and he would be alive.

The other two eyewitnesses did not...



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 01:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: LordSnow21

second, who are these eyewitnesses? if they were finicums fellow insurgents i'm not in any way interested in their account of the event.

Shawna Cox and Victoria Sharp, if I remember correctly.



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 01:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

He wondered if 'the Negro' was better off under slavery. That's so far beyond ignorance and into racism that I barely know where to start.

Actually the term 'negro' was used quite extensively until thirty years ago or so, so I don't think that an elderly person using that word in discussion necessarily makes them a racist. Surely though, there must be more damning examples of Mr. Bundy being racist than this. Interviews of him saying "yeah I hate those black people", his presence at Klan or neo nazi rallies, or something like that? It isn't just this one ignorant statement, is it? If it is, then I am skeptical of this claim, and I think you may have been fooled in this regard.



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 01:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheBadCabbie

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: TheBadCabbie

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: TheBadCabbie

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

So many emotions yet so little substance!

Can't attack the argument so immediately attack the individual!


Oh come off it. Cliven Bundy is a racist - his own damn words condemn him as a racist. Remember that interview he gave before the cameras, in which he said that African-Americans were better off when they were slaves? After that even the GOP ran a mile rather than offer their support.
As for this wildlife fiasco - the locals want them gone. My wife's from Oregon, she knows people in the area and they are all adamant on one thing - that the last whackdoodles need to get the hell out. They have no place there, they are not wanted and the Hammonds (about whom this was all originally about) want nothing to do with them. They're only still there because they want the nasty old FBI to stop being mean by threatening to prosecute them on eleventy billion charges of being idiots on Federal property.

I think you should come off of it. If you get anyone talking about the issue of race, you can take their words and twist them around to make them look like a racist. You know what I'm talking about. It actually happened to me about a month ago, and I'm about as far from racist as you can get. Unless you have some actual evidence of Cliven Bundy actually being a racist, then, you should pick your insults more carefully. If you want them to actually carry any weight, that is. Or not, as you prefer. Just don't expect me to take you seriously, when you just yell "racist whackdoodles!" and your wife is from Oregon (hehe, she's probably from Portland), and act as if that settles the issue. Substance. Bring some substantive arguments, or don't expect to be taken seriously, at least not by me.


Hood River actually, and her father was a farmer way South of Portland. And by the way - here's Cliven Bundy being a racist.

I can see him speaking ignorantly in a sort of rant that undoubtedly has been used to cast him as a racist; but, has he actually expressed hate for african americans or other minorities, or has he just made ignorant statements such as these? And what about his sons? Does it necessarily follow that his sons must be racist, because their father has been labeled as one? Are you saying, then, that the occupation was a "whites only" party, or something like that?


Yes they are a right wing organization and yes a lot of their members are white supremists. Even in rally's you can see that confederate flag fly. They even came to the defense of the confetate flag saying it was a symbol of freedom yeah right.

thefreethoughtproject.com...

ladylibertyslamp.wordpress.com...

What about the occupiers who weren't white? Doesn't that sort of debunk your claim that this was a white supremacist operation? I know some of the militia types are racist, it doesn't mean that this occupation was. Furthermore, what does "right wing" have to do with racism? Methinks you cast a net that is too wide, here.


I hate to tell you this, but all of the arrested people from the Malheur Wildflife Refuge have been Caucasians. I don't think that one was them was non-white.



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 01:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheBadCabbie

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

He wondered if 'the Negro' was better off under slavery. That's so far beyond ignorance and into racism that I barely know where to start.

Actually the term 'negro' was used quite extensively until thirty years ago or so, so I don't think that an elderly person using that word in discussion necessarily makes them a racist. Surely though, there must be more damning examples of Mr. Bundy being racist than this. Interviews of him saying "yeah I hate those black people", his presence at Klan or neo nazi rallies, or something like that? It isn't just this one ignorant statement, is it? If it is, then I am skeptical of this claim, and I think you may have been fooled in this regard.


Are you being serious? Or are you trolling me? Because when even Sean Hannity abandons someone as being a racist the die tends to be cast.



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, who himself was at the center of a Bureau of Land Management (BLM) overreach is traveling to Oregon along with Nevada state assemblywoman Michele Fiore and lawmakers from other western states.


Both Bundy And Fiore have had financial problems with the Federal Government.

Neither have been recently "bothered".

I smell blackmail with the entire thing.




posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 01:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: TheBadCabbie

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

He wondered if 'the Negro' was better off under slavery. That's so far beyond ignorance and into racism that I barely know where to start.

Actually the term 'negro' was used quite extensively until thirty years ago or so, so I don't think that an elderly person using that word in discussion necessarily makes them a racist. Surely though, there must be more damning examples of Mr. Bundy being racist than this. Interviews of him saying "yeah I hate those black people", his presence at Klan or neo nazi rallies, or something like that? It isn't just this one ignorant statement, is it? If it is, then I am skeptical of this claim, and I think you may have been fooled in this regard.


Are you being serious? Or are you trolling me? Because when even Sean Hannity abandons someone as being a racist the die tends to be cast.

Yes I am being serious. I understand that his ignorant comments had the effect of ostracizing him from the media. I am interested in viewing this issue with clarity, however. The media often tends to misconstrue. That is why I'm asking you if there is any more to the notion that Cliven Bundy is a racist, because you seem to have come in strongly to the topic repeating that claim.



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 02:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

I hate to tell you this, but all of the arrested people from the Malheur Wildflife Refuge have been Caucasians. I don't think that one was them was non-white.

Actually you would be mistaken in this regard. Look here:
Former Malheur refuge occupier arrested on Kansas warrant
Hasn't gotten much attention it seems, but it's there. He was there. A man who, obviously, is not white.



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 02:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen

Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, who himself was at the center of a Bureau of Land Management (BLM) overreach is traveling to Oregon along with Nevada state assemblywoman Michele Fiore and lawmakers from other western states.


Both Bundy And Fiore have had financial problems with the Federal Government.

Neither have been recently "bothered".

I smell blackmail with the entire thing.


What do you think the play is then, Xuenny? Fed turns land over to the states, yay for freedom the people cry, the back room big business deals continue(only brokered by the states now), and the people still lose?



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 02:25 PM
link   
a reply to: [post=20356480]Informer1958[/post
After reading this article and looking at it and then sleeping on it, something does not seem right at all.

What exactly are these people think that they are going to do or have the authority to do? They can not force the authorities to release him, nor can they demand anything. The Bundys that were arrested were done such in Oregon, they did violate the law, no matter how well intintioned the motivations were. So what exactly are they thinking that is going to happen? The reality is they show up, get to meet him behind bars and then wait for the trial to happen. If anything I would say the best thing that they could do is pay for a good defense attorny and ask that rights and law is properly enforced.



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 02:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

You seem to fail to realize that SCOTUS may not trump human rights. I'm sorry but no, you cannot simply go around pointing guns at someone entirely unprovoked and then expect the person not to defend them self. When SCOTUS was that slavery was fine and dandy, it was still just fine to free slaves and help them escape. Yet, that was a violation of SCOTUS. If someone points a gun at you, then as per the right to life as outlined by the constitution, you then have that authority to shoot back. If the supreme court wants to make a painfully obviously wrong decision on that, it invalidates them as an authority and renders them illegitimate.



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 03:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: centarix
As always, the peace-loving militia people who are known for responsibly handling firearms were the ones abused.


Priceless! You mean the peace-loving militia people who threatened a bloodbath on camera for all to see? The one who said he would "never be taken alive"? The one who ran a road block (rather inexpertly) then jumped from his truck yelling, "Shoot me! Shoot me!"

You oughta be a comedian.
Actions speak louder than words. Notice the cops put a road-block to stop the protesters from attending a meeting. They have the freedom of speech to attend that, so you are wrong to support the road-block in the first place.



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 03:50 PM
link   
a reply to: centarix

Like I said, go for it. Do let us know how it works out.



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 03:51 PM
link   
a reply to: centarix

I noticed they put up a roadblock after trying to make a traffic stop to serve warrants.

Making things up isn't really a solid argument.



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 04:48 PM
link   
All of this foot stomping and teeth gnashing regarding the purported unconstitutionality of federal land ownership is ridiculous.

In 2007, the Congressional Research Service released a comprehensive report titled Federal Land Ownership: Constitutional Authority and
the History of Acquisition, Disposal, and Retention
for members of Congress. Their findings were unambiguous:

The U.S. Constitution addresses the relationship of the federal government to lands. Article IV, § 3, Clause 2 — the Property Clause — gives Congress authority over federal property generally, and the Supreme Court has described Congress’s power to legislate under this Clause as “without limitation.”


Congress set national policy on the future of Federal lands in 1976.

40 Section 102(a) of FLPMA states: “The Congress declares that it is the policy of the United States that — (1) the public lands be retained in Federal ownership, unless as a result of the land use planning procedure provided for in this Act, it is determined that disposal of a particular parcel will serve the national interest.”


If it is so obviously unconstitutional, don't you think many states, backed by deep-pocketed corporations wouldn't already have lawsuits filed, that are working their way to the U. S. Supreme court?

Even if the judicial understanding of the property clause were to modify toward a more sovereign state friendly posture, how does that equate to "turning the land over to counties and local ranchers"?

These Bundy-centric demands are moronic. Petition your Senators and House Representatives if you don't like their stewardship of a particular parcel of federal land. I don't think riding in on your horse and illegally squatting on a US Wildlife refuge will ever change anything.



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 05:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

They must've set that road block up pretty quickly, then, if they didn't already have it set up when the first stop was initiated. What, like, thirty seconds?




top topics



 
30
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join