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.

 

FBI Siege Happening Live On Phonecall

page: 37
97
<< 34  35  36    38  39  40 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 03:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66




That does not suggest, however, that all people in government are evil, wrong, liars, tyrants, etc.


Nor have I said any such thing.
It doesn't take "all people in government" to be liars, tyrants, etc. to have a problem. It only takes one, as with one bad cop, giving the whole herd a bad smell. It takes only a few ignoring the wrongs, allowing them to spread. Had you actually watched the FBI/Bundy meeting you would have heard that very sentiment expressed. You didn't hear that part of the conversation on the msm, did you?
You claim to know a lot about this and yet you constantly assert things that never happened and refuse to provide any sort of evidence for your accusations. How is one to respect anything you say?
Pics or it didn't happen?

And yeah, I did those things. It is recorded in the public record. That's the same public record that was accessed and used by some folk to "discredit" me by saying, "See, she's been a troublemaker since she was just a juvenile." and neglecting to say anything about how we the students were right and were proven correct in claiming our right of expression.




posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 03:42 AM
link   
a reply to: diggindirt

When you make absolute unqualified charges against "the government" you are indeed saying such things about the individuals involved in government.

I see the "if you did those things" phrasing apparently ruffled you. NO offense intended. People claim all kinds of things on the internet.



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 03:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheBadCabbie
a reply to: diggindirt

Did any of the occupiers make any actual spoken threats at all? I know Finicum didn't...any of the other leaders, though? Anyone? What about mustache dude? He make any threats? Ritzheimer? Anyone else?


Well, if they did nobody has posted them in answer to my pleas. I have begged, beseeched, implored and challenged all who are making false claims of threats made to post them. Have you seen any evidence of their attempts to provide the facts to back up their claims of threats?
I freely admit that I have not had time to watch every video available that pertains to this situation so there might be one out there but until someone posts it and proves me wrong I am steadfast in my contention that by definition this action meets the definition of civil disobedience.



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 03:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66
Ah, I see, sorry.
Enjoy your nap and come back when you've found those videos that show the Citizens for Constitutional Freedom threatening law enforcement and federal agents.
Sleep tight.



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 03:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: diggindirt
a reply to: Gryphon66
Ah, I see, sorry.
Enjoy your nap and come back when you've found those videos that show the Citizens for Constitutional Freedom threatening law enforcement and federal agents.
Sleep tight.


Ah. LOL.

You need the nap, not me. You're the one who went off on me about my post without even examining the one above it or considering context.

The world, I hate to inform you, is not contained within the confines of Youtube. If I showed you a video proving that ghosts are real, would you believe in ghosts? How about Bigfoot? UFOS? There are "videos" that prove all these things, yet, as of yet, there is no accepted proof of even one.

Aside from that, again, the matter is obvious. The Bundy Gang and Extended Gun Club violated the laws of Oregon and the US (and quite likely Harney County) in front of all of our eyes for nearly two months. I don't have to prove the known and obvious.
edit on 12-2-2016 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 04:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: diggindirt
a reply to: Gryphon66
Ah, I see, sorry.
Enjoy your nap and come back when you've found those videos that show the Citizens for Constitutional Freedom threatening law enforcement and federal agents.
Sleep tight.


I would like to see those videos myself.

I think a safe guess would be that thousands of people would like to see those videos too. I am pretty sure that if any existed, they would have gone viral by now.

Sounds about like what the Hammonds were charged with - poaching - without any evidence at all.

None, zilch, nada.

(yeah, yeah, I know, they were also charged with arson and convicted of it)




Now, i have often wondered why the oathkeepers showed up at Bundy's ranch in his defense. I did not know that armed BLM agents were in his yard pointing guns at his children when they attempted to round up all his cattle.

I didn't know that .... that changes everything.
edit on 12-2-2016 by GeisterFahrer because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 04:05 AM
link   
Millions have seen "the videos" of the armed occupation over the course of two months.

Armed occupation is both a recognized and legal threat, as is the statements that force would be used if anyone tried to end the illegal armed occupation..

Denying this simple fact is just silly.



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 04:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Millions have seen "the videos" of the armed occupation over the course of two months.

Armed occupation is both a recognized and legal threat, as is the statements that force would be used if anyone tried to end the illegal armed occupation..

Denying this simple fact is just silly.


then you should have no problem showing a video of them making threats at police officers.



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 04:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: GeisterFahrer

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Millions have seen "the videos" of the armed occupation over the course of two months.

Armed occupation is both a recognized and legal threat, as is the statements that force would be used if anyone tried to end the illegal armed occupation..

Denying this simple fact is just silly.


then you should have no problem showing a video of them making threats at police officers.


I don't have any trouble at all with that request.

Simply find any video (including some of the ones you yourself have linked) that shows the armed trespassers occupying a Federal public facility, or stating their intentions to claim it for their own use, or that they would "defend" against anyone who tried to stop them in this illegal act.

Taa-daa.



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 04:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66




The Bundy Gang was not "protesters" they were armed occupiers and trespassers.


They were participating in civil disobedience as I proved by my earlier posts. If you have facts that prove otherwise, in the form of videos showing them making threats against anyone or being discourteous to law enforcement, you must provide some bit of evidence beyond what msm says.
You don't even take the time or effort to consider the evidence I've presented. There is no way humanly possible that you actually watched the points of video that I presented before you hit reply. And yet you continue to make absurd statements like "spit on the Constitution" and other slanderous statements without one tiny shred of evidence to offer.
It's the way debates work. I provide my evidence, then it's your turn. But you refuse to provide anything except your clouded perceptions of the situation. Clouded by what your favorite source said about what was happening.
Please show me where I have moved the goalposts? Please show me where you have ever provided any evidence.
It's not even a weak argument you've made, it's an argument based on emotion, not on facts, not on what has actually been said and done. I've provided the very words of the people involved, both protesters and their interactions with law enforcement. Proved that they were civil. Proved that they civilly refused to obey the request of the LEOs to vacate the property. I will continue to post that evidence and to say you are wrong as long as your emotional diatribes continue. I will continue to assert that they have the right to take actions of civil disobedience so long as those actions do not cause harm to others. In this case, the only harm has come from government agents, not from the peacefully civil disobedient protesters.
Where would be safer than a refuge 30 miles from the nearest town, a refuge that is officially closed for the season at the end of hunting season in December? Entering an unoccupied set of buildings by unlocking the door with keys provided to them isn't a violent action. Refusing to leave when requested to do so isn't a violent or threatening action. It is an act of civil disobedience.



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 05:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: GeisterFahrer

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Millions have seen "the videos" of the armed occupation over the course of two months.

Armed occupation is both a recognized and legal threat, as is the statements that force would be used if anyone tried to end the illegal armed occupation..

Denying this simple fact is just silly.


then you should have no problem showing a video of them making threats at police officers.


I don't have any trouble at all with that request.

Simply find any video (including some of the ones you yourself have linked) that shows the armed trespassers occupying a Federal public facility, or stating their intentions to claim it for their own use, or that they would "defend" against anyone who tried to stop them in this illegal act.

Taa-daa.



Just one. Please. Just show us one that shows them stating that they intend to claim it for their own use. I've posted the ones where they say they believe that the land belongs to the people of Oregon and the county of Harney and that it is the people of the state and county who should have administrative control of the land rather than the federal government. In case you failed to see that: It's at the 25:30 mark of this press conference.
www.youtube.com...

See it's easy to back up what I've asserted with words from the protesters themselves.
It's also very easy to find dozens of videos with newscasters and "experts" of all sorts saying exactly what you're saying. But they don't have any video of the very people involved saying those things. They're making it up. They are delusional. They think advocating the return to the principles expressed in the Constitution is anti-government. How, I ask you, can adhering to the document that created government be against government? These people have swallowed too many of BigPharma's concotions! I'm sure they get free samples from their major advertisers.


The protesters said they were going to hold a peaceful protest. They did. People came from miles around to visit and discuss and learn. They were peaceful. No humans were harmed by the peaceful civil disobedience. There were heated arguments within the group. Imagine that---differences of opinions among like-minded people---the horror of it! Differences of opinion among a bunch of armed, angry men! It was bound to be a bloodbath when men who have guns disagree with other men who have guns. But it didn't happen on the refuge.
The refuge was a place of peace, good food, fellowship, hard work, education and a lot of disagreements about how to proceed with the fight for liberty and a return to the Constitution as our guide for governance. But none of those armed militant protesters shot anyone or even pointed a gun at anyone.
They said they would defend their lives if fired upon. They said that repeatedly. And yet, when fired upon, even though it is alleged that loaded weapons were found in their vehicles, they did not shed any blood except their own.

I'm not at all sure I would have had that much resolve.
I've said repeatedly, their way was not the one I would have picked. But I will defend their right to make that choice and to act in the cause of liberty as they see fit. That's the very definition of liberty---to chose the way you want to pursue life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and cause no harm to others.



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 05:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66
Another chuckle supplied but not one bit of evidence, much less proof of the things you've accused this group of doing.

Now you're just back to name calling of the protesters. What is coming across here is that you have nothing to back up your ridiculous claims and the nonsense put out by msm and government-affiliated highly-paid spokespersons and experts who know which side of the bread is buttered.

When evidence fails to appear, attack---always shows a lot of maturity when you can make up clever names to demean people who have never caused anyone harm.



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 05:45 AM
link   
a reply to: caterpillage

Law enforcement has a duty to defend life in general.

"Average citizens" have no such duty.



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 06:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: caterpillage

Law enforcement has a duty to defend life in general.

"Average citizens" have no such duty.


I respectfully disagree. It is my belief that it is my duty as a fellow citizen to defend the life of anyone threatened. I certainly hope that if I need defending and there are no law enforcement hanging out, some of my fellow citizens will step in. I like to think that in my neck of the woods an "average citizen" would take an interest in my defense. They wouldn't think twice.
The cops with which I share a love of burning powder are always ready to help anyone who is learning to defend themselves and others because they know they're not there when the problems happen. I can't say that I've heard them say in so many words that they believe average citizens are duty bound to protect one another but their actions seem to indicate that belief.
edit on 12-2-2016 by diggindirt because: spelling



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 06:30 AM
link   
a reply to: diggindirt

Your belief, while well meaning, is not a legal obligation. Nobody calls you to respond to a bank robbery or man with a gun.

I see your point, and frankly I expected this kind of response. It's apples and oranges.



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 06:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6
Oh, yes, of course there is a difference between a legal obligation and a duty.
But your post spoke of duty, not legal obligations. Perhaps you'd like to edit it.



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 07:06 AM
link   
a reply to: diggindirt

No.



edit on 12-2-2016 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 07:08 AM
link   
a reply to: diggindirt

Since duty is defined as a moral or legal obligation, I'm good. You're taking one definition, I'm taking the other. As I said, apples and oranges.

Perhaps you'd like to edit your post.



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 07:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: caterpillage

Law enforcement has a duty to defend life in general.

"Average citizens" have no such duty.


Denial of assistance (in case of an emergency) is a crime.
Nothing special at all, it's my duty to defend life as well.



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 07:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6
That's cool. You have both a legal and moral obligation to protect life. The average citizen can be expected to perform out of duty alone. That was the distinction I was making without being quite so blunt. Sorry I was unclear.



new topics

top topics



 
97
<< 34  35  36    38  39  40 >>

log in

join