But your the only one who still gives a fuck. Most people lost interest while Finicum still had body heat.
The Kooks are Back
- Thread starter SGaynor
- Start date
If you don't care why do you still comment? No one would care if you didn't comment. You don't have to comment in every thread on Dweb. That's not a requirement.
Oh boy. I see a little of the Dan we all know. Did that piss you off a little? Sorry about that, kind of.
It's not Oregon, but Texas is moving forward with their case against the BLM.
http://txpo.li/Order-Granting-GLO-Motion
District Court Order Grants Motion for Texas General Land Office to Intervene
https://parkercountyblog.com/2016/03/25/31639/
More info on Red River
http://www.redriverpropertyrights.com/
http://txpo.li/Order-Granting-GLO-Motion
District Court Order Grants Motion for Texas General Land Office to Intervene
https://parkercountyblog.com/2016/03/25/31639/
More info on Red River
http://www.redriverpropertyrights.com/
There are people that think, no matter what, the Federal government is always right. We call them Democrats and Republicans.
We can focus now on a building that was trashed instead of what led up to this here and in many other cases.
Here is an example that shows the government over stepping it's bounds and the fact that they settled it shows their complicity.
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/incident-at-ruby-ridge
Now I'm sure some will say that Randy Weaver was a white separatist and needed to be arrested for selling 2 sawed off shotguns. Be that as it may, his son, wife and dog were not on the warrant.
Do a search on U.S. Government atrocities.
And remember, you or someone you know may very well be The Kooks one day.
We can focus now on a building that was trashed instead of what led up to this here and in many other cases.
Here is an example that shows the government over stepping it's bounds and the fact that they settled it shows their complicity.
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/incident-at-ruby-ridge
Now I'm sure some will say that Randy Weaver was a white separatist and needed to be arrested for selling 2 sawed off shotguns. Be that as it may, his son, wife and dog were not on the warrant.
Do a search on U.S. Government atrocities.
And remember, you or someone you know may very well be The Kooks one day.
I have stayed quiet because I air on the side of caution here. Generally speaking anyone who questions the government can be quickly labeled a conspiracy theorists and a quack. Kind of sad really. George Carlin once said it best, but I'll leave that there.
There is definitely Government overreach. The sad part is when there is obvious overreach normally no one goes to jail, the Government(s) protect their own, time passes and all moral atrocities are soon forgotten. All that's left is memories of loved ones deceased and questions of why.
These events can effect each and every American differently. I believe the level at which we're effected derives from two major factors, proximity and frequency. Lets look at an example.
Lets say the local Police shot and killed your neighbors dog because in the middle of police duties the dog acted aggressively. The neighbor sees the family cry, morn and ask the police why. He hears their children ask why Rover isn't moving. You see where I'm going with this? That neighbor is more likely to develop a bad taste concerning police, maybe even distrust and a certain level of pissed offness. While, people who watch it on the local news may think the dog acted aggressively and the police were in their right to extinguish the animal. Here lies our proximity level. Those more 'in tune' with the actions of authorities may hold a higher lever of displeasure in this case.
Frequency. Generally speaking, Americans have short memories. Especially in a time a online "walls" and smartphones. What's relevant one minute isn't the next. My point is, in order for any government overreach to be recognized, get legs and truly start moving this (unfortunately) would need to happen more often, much more often. As mentioned, there would have been 4-8 Ruby Ridge type incidents happen within a year period before the outcry and call for investigations would be MUCH higher. But, these events don't really rack up most of the time and often go unnoticed, or worse often labeled a trivial by the public from outside the glass looking in.
I'm not speaking about this Bundy incident in particular, I'm just pointing out my take on how Americans generally react to such incidents. This is important because public outcry draws change. We all saw how fast the confederate flag came down in South Carolina.
News can be misleading, particularly if they are trying to drive a narrative, asking the neighbor "Are you sure the dog didn't charge at the officer?" Often the ones with the most well rounded opinions are the ones that live in close proximity, and from neutral individuals that weren't involved.
I guess my point is everything is not always as it seems. And there's always 3 sides to every story. No humans are perfect not even humans that work for the Government and Public outcry (if longed lived) can be a very effective method of change.
There is definitely Government overreach. The sad part is when there is obvious overreach normally no one goes to jail, the Government(s) protect their own, time passes and all moral atrocities are soon forgotten. All that's left is memories of loved ones deceased and questions of why.
These events can effect each and every American differently. I believe the level at which we're effected derives from two major factors, proximity and frequency. Lets look at an example.
Lets say the local Police shot and killed your neighbors dog because in the middle of police duties the dog acted aggressively. The neighbor sees the family cry, morn and ask the police why. He hears their children ask why Rover isn't moving. You see where I'm going with this? That neighbor is more likely to develop a bad taste concerning police, maybe even distrust and a certain level of pissed offness. While, people who watch it on the local news may think the dog acted aggressively and the police were in their right to extinguish the animal. Here lies our proximity level. Those more 'in tune' with the actions of authorities may hold a higher lever of displeasure in this case.
Frequency. Generally speaking, Americans have short memories. Especially in a time a online "walls" and smartphones. What's relevant one minute isn't the next. My point is, in order for any government overreach to be recognized, get legs and truly start moving this (unfortunately) would need to happen more often, much more often. As mentioned, there would have been 4-8 Ruby Ridge type incidents happen within a year period before the outcry and call for investigations would be MUCH higher. But, these events don't really rack up most of the time and often go unnoticed, or worse often labeled a trivial by the public from outside the glass looking in.
I'm not speaking about this Bundy incident in particular, I'm just pointing out my take on how Americans generally react to such incidents. This is important because public outcry draws change. We all saw how fast the confederate flag came down in South Carolina.
News can be misleading, particularly if they are trying to drive a narrative, asking the neighbor "Are you sure the dog didn't charge at the officer?" Often the ones with the most well rounded opinions are the ones that live in close proximity, and from neutral individuals that weren't involved.
I guess my point is everything is not always as it seems. And there's always 3 sides to every story. No humans are perfect not even humans that work for the Government and Public outcry (if longed lived) can be a very effective method of change.
Last edited:
You're confused. An individual can make unlimited donations to any PAC (and the NRA's political action arm is a PAC). (See first footnote in link below: "Independent-expenditure-only political committees (sometimes called “super PACs”) may accept unlimited contributions, including from corporations and labor organizations." )
You're thinking of a PAC's direct contribution to a candidate.
http://www.fec.gov/info/contriblimitschart1516.pdf
We comment to contradict the mis-information that you are putting out there. Like these guys are defending peoples rights. Or the Feds have no jurisdiction in states. Or Feds can't own land.
That's all fiction, and promulgating it, just feeds into the BS narrative these kooks are putting out.
Stuff like this:
You're equating a lone woman being pulled over on a road, at night, to a group who have threatened violence, took over a federal facility, made it clear they are armed and will fight, being pulled over by a cavalcade of police and federal officers? Really?
And there is no need for a warrant to initiate a traffic stop, or for police to arrest someone. In fact, the police can detain someone up to 72 hours before filing charges.
So, again - we respond because the legal arguments these guys (and you) make are simplistic and not based in law. To just decide that YOU decide what is the law and can do what you THINK is lawful, is not - it is lawlessness.
Last edited:
I blame all of this on Obama!
Walter you are right! Republicans and Democrats do believe that the government is our savior. That's why I'm neither. Our government does need a good house cleaning and all the dems and republicans, and tea bagers, and independents in the world are not up to the task - and I have yet to see a "militia" or group of armed protesters who are any more capable either. I ASSURE you, I have a shit ton of questions for our government and I have waxed poetically for decent, measured, clear-headed, strong, and reasonable statesmen to rise up from the utter refuse that runs for political office!!!!! I just don't think we're going to find this person protesting grazing rights or conducting interviews under a tarp. These people are distractions. Mere side-shows and jokes.
Walter you are right! Republicans and Democrats do believe that the government is our savior. That's why I'm neither. Our government does need a good house cleaning and all the dems and republicans, and tea bagers, and independents in the world are not up to the task - and I have yet to see a "militia" or group of armed protesters who are any more capable either. I ASSURE you, I have a shit ton of questions for our government and I have waxed poetically for decent, measured, clear-headed, strong, and reasonable statesmen to rise up from the utter refuse that runs for political office!!!!! I just don't think we're going to find this person protesting grazing rights or conducting interviews under a tarp. These people are distractions. Mere side-shows and jokes.
Dan's quest for truth is based on google and very opinionated articles (and zero insight on the operational side of Law Enforcement)…while trying to look at both sides, doesn't realize he's falling for the rhetoric these guys preach about how the government is breaking the law, not them.
Yes, there are several cases against BLM, the Forest Service and other .gov agencies about land seizures. Each having it's own reasoning and two sides to the story.
This is more in tune with Dan's legal expertise.
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/wqnHtGgVAUE?rel=0&controls=0&showinfo=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/wqnHtGgVAUE?rel=0&controls=0&showinfo=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
The way I understand it you still have got to have a warrant for arrest. I'm not saying they're innocent people. I have never said that. But there is a procedure that needs to be followed.
Delaware v. Prouse
You do not need a warrant for arrest, just probable cause…As for the traffic stop, plethora of reasons to get pulled over (not saying it's right) seats belts not worn, tail light out, speeding, leaving the scene of a crime…All examples of why you can be pulled over, get out of the vehicle and play stupid games…well
There was probably cause, they were leaving the scene of a crime…whether you agree with it or not
There was probably cause, they were leaving the scene of a crime…whether you agree with it or not
There's probably confusion between PAC and Super PAC - the super PACs can get unlimited funds, from anyone. See: people having a conniption over Koch and others supporting super PACs.
Seriously? So, I could shoot you right in front of a cop, and he couldn't arrest me until he went to a grand jury, got an indictment and then a warrant from a judge? Please...you know that's not true. If you do believe that, tell that to the cop when he arrests you for DUI - "Can't arrest me without a warrant."
[From Wiki]Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 (1979), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that police may not stop motorists without any reasonable suspicion to suspect crime or illegal activity, to check their driver's license and auto registration.[1][2]
Let's see...They were being stopped to make an arrest. Not to "check their DLs." Pretty sure this isn't on point. Try again, counselor.
Here ya go. All the ways an officer (federal, and local described) can make an arrest in OR. No warrant needed:
https://www.oregon.gov/dpsst/SC/doc...ers/Federal Officer Arrest Manual 10-2013.pdf
https://www.oregon.gov/dpsst/SC/doc...ers/Federal Officer Arrest Manual 10-2013.pdf