ADVERTISEMENT

Tyranny in the FUSA

Status
Not open for further replies.
theJRG1

theJRG1

Freshman
Gold Member
Nov 22, 2011
274
102
43
What else can you call it, but tyranny?

Last week, the regime celebrated the 125-year anniversary of its massacre of 297 Sioux at Wounded Knee. I wasn't an Indian, so I said nothing. Last May, a joint LEO task force killed 9 bikers and imprisoned 177 more, but I wasn't a Bandido, so didn't fight back. Yesterday, two ranchers reported for their "remaining" prison sentences. What's the whole story of the Hammonds?

A few facts:



If not us, who? If not now, when? Welcome to the suck, comrades.
 
Lost me when I saw that the video is 30 minutes long. TL/DR category for me. ;)
 
From what I've read about the case, it seems like the Hammonds got a raw deal. The problem is mandatory minimum sentences, which are never a good thing. They attempt to create one-size-fits-all solutions for statutes that can apply to all kinds of situations. The Hammonds probably deserved to be charged for setting fire to federal land, but five years seems pretty excessive (as the district judge also thought). The 9th Circuit then (correctly) determined that the court's hands were tied because Congress had set the mandatory minimum sentence.

What any of that has to do with a bunch of yahoos from Nevada "occupying" a wildlife refuge in Oregon, though, is beyond me.
 
Heels in Space said:
From what I've read about the case, it seems like the Hammonds got a raw deal. The problem is mandatory minimum sentences, which are never a good thing. They attempt to create one-size-fits-all solutions for statutes that can apply to all kinds of situations. The Hammonds probably deserved to be charged for setting fire to federal land, but five years seems pretty excessive (as the district judge also thought). The 9th Circuit then (correctly) determined that the court's hands were tied because Congress had set the mandatory minimum sentence.

What any of that has to do with a bunch of yahoos from Nevada "occupying" a wildlife refuge in Oregon, though, is beyond me.
Click to expand...

Exactly. The law was passed in '96, I think, by a GOP Congress in response to Oklahoma City. That the Hammonds were illegally harvesting deer and set the fire to destroy the evidence is pretty well established. The big problem is it seems they were over-charged. It might be said that the fire could have destroyed real property and one person said he was nearly trapped by the flames but this doesn't really seem to rise to the level of blowing up a govt building. If someone had died or if the fire had spread to buildings...a five-year sentence would have been lenient. Once convicted, however, the sentences were set.
 
tarheelbybirth said:
That the Hammonds were illegally harvesting deer and set the fire to destroy the evidence is pretty well established.
Click to expand...

Alleged? Yes. Well-established? Far from it.

Meet the utter wack-job US Attorney prosecutor:

amanda-marshall.jpg


And read up on how batshit crazy she is, especially as regards this case. @GACMAN is right...it's all a land grab.
 
theJRG1 said:
Alleged? Yes. Well-established? Far from it..
Click to expand...

Well, people who were there with them testified against them describing how matches were handed out to start the fire. At least one relative testified against them. So...yeah...well established.

And I'm not sure how the govt could "land grab" land they already own.
 
  • Like
Reactions: heelmanwilm
I think they have a great plan here. They tweeted for people to bring them snacks which was brilliant. Just a few more days and the govt will give up, forgive the debt, and let them continue to graze their cows on fed property for free.
 
theJRG1 said:
What law, supported by the constitution, or what section of said constitution grants the federal goobermint the right to own land, and for what purpose(s)?
Click to expand...
Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2: "The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States...." There are 125 years of Supreme Court rulings that support the federal government's constitutional right to own land.
 
  • Like
Reactions: heelmanwilm and Heels in Space
Raising Heel said:
Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2: "The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States...." There are 125 years of Supreme Court rulings that support the federal government's constitutional right to own land.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the input, but that doesn't address the question asked, does it?

You quoted Article, Section & Clause that answers what congress may do with "Territory" owned. Not how that ownership may justifiably come about.

The king's court endorsing the king's actions should convince no one of their legitimacy.
 
theJRG1 said:
Thanks for the input, but that doesn't address the question asked, does it?

You quoted Article, Section & Clause that answers what congress may do with "Territory" owned. Not how that ownership may justifiably come about.

The king's court endorsing the king's actions should convince no one of their legitimacy.
Click to expand...

You asked for Congressional justification for the govt owning land. You got exactly what you requested. Don't try moving the goal posts now. If the govt can "justifiably" own land, then they can "justifiably" acquire land by any of several means. The FF's understood this quite clearly. Even an anti-Federalist like Jefferson understood that the govt could buy land, hence the Louisiana Purchase. Or should we return that land to France? What do we do with Alaska?
 
  • Like
Reactions: jcolucci
theJRG1 said:
Can you even read?
Click to expand...

You betcha!

theJRG1 said:
@tarheelbybirth & @heelmanwilm

What law, supported by the constitution, or what section of said constitution grants the federal goobermint the right to own land, and for what purpose(s)?
Click to expand...

You got your answer. You then changed your question to ask what part of the Constitution describes the HOW of acquiring the land...which is kind of a silly question. The govt can buy it, conquer it, annex it, etc, etc, etc. If you want to quibble over the "for what purposes" part of your question, I'll just point you to the Preamble.
 
theJRG1 said:
That's your merry-go-round, bud. Ain't ridin wit the likes of you...

View embedded media
Click to expand...

Yet u make the point for me time after time after time after...Lol. U bring up yet ANOTHER perfect example of a behavior seen to be wrong by some yet perfectly justifiable by others. Ergo: subjective.
Not only do u ride the merry go round, you build it, promote it, and worship its existence.

Thanks once again
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: strummingram
heelmanwilm said:
Thanks once again
Click to expand...

Oh no, sir. Thank you, for helping keep this thread at the top of the list...And for further invalidating your own nonsense with more circular nonsense.

Back to the actual subject...

For those interested in the history of this particular piece of land, and the government's redundant malfeasance regarding it, consider this brief essay from William Grigg (who lives in Idaho and has visited the site twice during the current occupation). Pro Libertate. The story's the same...only the players have changed. That is, not the first time the government has claimed it and given it to someone else in furtherance of their power.

If reading essays are a challenge, Grigg produced a mighty fine podcast on the same subject.

And for anyone satisfied with trusting this government, John Whitehead quotes Aldous Huxley: “There will be, in the next generation or so, a pharmacological method of making people love their servitude, and producing dictatorship without tears, so to speak, producing a kind of painless concentration camp for entire societies, so that people will in fact have their liberties taken away from them, but will rather enjoy it, because they will be distracted from any desire to rebel by propaganda or brainwashing, or brainwashing enhanced by pharmacological methods. And this seems to be the final revolution.” Read his essay, The State of the Nation: A Dictatorship Without Tears.
 
Quoted message could not be found...heelmanwilm said post #19: "So what you're saying is that what the govt is doing here is absolutely wrong in all instances regardless of circumstances?"

No sir. That would be twisting what I did say to mean something entirely different; a favored tactic of the moonbat left.

I didn't even say that the government has no "right" to possess "Territory". I just asked what law(s) permitted such and under what conditions. I might concede that fedguv might legitimately (as far as the constitution...not the "congress", tarhellbybirth,...could abide) possess some real property.

Lemme turn your question back on you: Are you saying that there's no circumstance where you might question, or (perish the thought) disobey, your federal masters? Pick something out of Grigg's or Whitehead's essays to justify your perpetual fealty?
 
Of course there are circumstances i question the govt and even disobey laws. Know why? Cause i feel justified doing do. Know why? Cause sometimes i feel they're wrong and its worth challenging the legality. Know why? Cause whats wrong to the law/govt may he right to me. Know why? Cause right and wrong are subjective.

Now where can i find an example to prove that? Hmmmmmm. Where indeed. Oh i know....the subject of your thread!

Heh heh heh
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Raising Heel
Wow. Yet again you've proven your brilliant subjectivity argument with brilliantly circuitous subjectivity.

Brilliant.

Here's a video featuring some things you won't like.



But hey, here's a different approach. How about you start a thread where you and I debate your religion of universal subjectivity? We'll invite lots of experts to that debate. You won't have to follow me around and sneeze on everything I post, and I won't be tempted to come kick your dead dog.

Deal?
 
You threaten to kick my dead dog cause u feel its justified given my owning u on this subject. U feel justified in doing something most would consider wrong. Just as i would feel justified for kicking your face in for doing so. Should i do that i wager the vast majority of posters in here would declare me a hero and chip in to pay my premium acct despite it being an illegal reaction. More proof that right and wrong are subjective.

Thanks again!

Seems you'd learn to stop while you're behind.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: UNC71-00, jcolucci and JuleZ '02 HEEL
Most truly excellent.

Just you and me, though, internet tough guy.

Before you leave this thread however, go ahead and fast-forward to the 1:14:50 mark in the Whittle/Molyneux video above. Anyone else suffering the same short-attention span maladies can do likewise. Meet your Shakespearean personification in Iago: "the epitome of evil...constantly telling you, "the thing that you think is virtue is not virtue."

Raising Heel said:
Are you f***ing serious right now?
Click to expand...

RaisingHeel, it's hyperbole. Not intended to be taken literally. I wouldn't threaten a person's dog, alive or not. The very point of that hyperbole is that heelmanwilm poisons the well of any discussion he doesn't like and/or can't debate, and that I wouldn't stoop to such. A common tactic to shut down discussions, and the reason I've invited him "outside" so to speak.

This thread has nothing more to do with his "subjectivity" fetish than it does his dog.

Want to moderate a cage match thread?
 
theJRG1 said:
RaisingHeel, it's hyperbole. Not intended to be taken literally. I wouldn't threaten a person's dog, alive or not.
Click to expand...
He wasn't asking if you were seriously threatening the dog. He was asking if you were seriously such a dick that you would use the fact that someone just lost his long-time companion to try to win an internet pissing match.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Raising Heel, yrusonvus, JuleZ '02 HEEL and 1 other person
theJRG1 said:
But hey, here's a different approach. How about you start a thread where you and I debate your religion of universal subjectivity? We'll invite lots of experts to that debate. You won't have to follow me around and sneeze on everything I post, and I won't be tempted to come kick your dead dog.
Click to expand...

What the **** is wrong with you?
 
Seriously @theJRG1 - we have a pretty tight board here- most of us have been on for many years. You bringing up Roscoe was so far over the line that I feel very confident that any of us could ask the board to put you on ignore and they would.

We may have differing politics but this group has pretty much weeded out those who are disrespectful. And really, why does someone of seemingly normal intelligence need to be told not to talk to someone in a derogatory manner about their recent loss of a family member?

I have a hard time remembering anyone ever saying anything worse on OOTB. Not cool.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Heels in Space, Raising Heel, yrusonvus and 3 others
I had to question if he saw the Roscoe thread. Then I wondered if he was that heartless. I'll give him a pass if he did not read that thread. If not, I have no use for anything he would say
 
Not even apologizing is pathetic. Ignore function for me as well. If someone would say something like that to me after the loss of a beloved pet, I would punch them in the throat then turn the other cheek.
I've followed this forum for quite a few years and have read some bitter quarls between people. Nothing said like the OP said.
 
  • Like
Reactions: heelmanwilm and UNC71-00
Status
Not open for further replies.
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back