POLITICAL THREAD

[jamo0001]

everybody keeps talking about the 2006 fire protecting personal property (which is debatable; several sources have said the Hammonds set that fire just to accelerate growth of cattle-friendly grasses), but the elder Hammonds wasn't even convicted of a crime regarding that fire. His 5-year sentence was for the 2001 fire which, according to the testimony of multiple witnesses (including his own grandson) was blatant arson intended to cover up evidence of poaching.

Back to the "terrorism" aspect, though, the lower court judge who gave them the more mild sentences never even cited the lack of terrorist character of the crimes (at least in what I've seen). He only said that the punishment was out of proportion to the crime. I'm sure most firefighters would disagree with that assessment, however.

 

[WettCat]

I think Obama should take some form of Executive action mandating gun control, we must limit the rights of citizens with regards to possessing any type of weapon. Those "Rancher" people are starting to scare me. Isn't that a big reason we pay taxes and elect leaders to go to Washington? So the government can protect us from bad people.

 

[JHB4UK]

I'm sure these building occupiers in Oregon will be given the same favorable treatment from government law enforcement & prosecutors as all the Black Lives Matters protesters who disrupted traffic by occupying busy interstates, or the Mizzou protesters who occupied a portion of their campus (and using "muscle" to clear out media).

How many of the 1000 (or was it 2000?) Mall St Mathews rioters were arrested? Even if 1 person in Oregon, occupying an abandoned out of the way facility is arrested for 5 minutes it will still be 5 more than any perp suffered in Louisville for shutting down one of the busiest malls in the state (and most of the surrounding businesses as well.

anyway, double-standards are fun.

 

[Mashburned]

LOL KY spent 300mil on the nations finest e-health exchange.

 

[WettCat]

But they didn't have guns. They were peacefully protesting....without guns. And they were not privileged.

These are privileged Ranchers with guns. Dangerous guns. Bad people.

Insecure Lives Matter!!!!

 

[Mojocat]

Well, dissent is the highest form of patriotism, don't ya know.....

 

[Free_Salato_Blue]

I'm sure these building occupiers in Oregon will be given the same favorable treatment from government law enforcement & prosecutors as all the Black Lives Matters protesters who disrupted traffic by occupying busy interstates, or the Mizzou protesters who occupied a portion of their campus (and using "muscle" to clear out media).

How many of the 1000 (or was it 2000?) Mall St Mathews rioters were arrested? Even if 1 person in Oregon, occupying an abandoned out of the way facility is arrested for 5 minutes it will still be 5 more than any perp suffered in Louisville for shutting down one of the busiest malls in the state (and most of the surrounding businesses as well.

anyway, double-standards are fun.

One points a real gun at law enforcement, the other points a realistic toy gun.
Only one gets shot, isn't that a mf'in double standard.

 

[JHB4UK]

No-one in Oregon is pointing guns at anyone. There is any law enforcement of any level within 50 miles of these freeloaders/trespassers. Thankfully there are now some smart people at the FBI, and are just going to let these people walk away rather than create another Ruby Ridge or Waco.

Which is sad for liberals like you & many others on twitter, who want them gunned down like dogs for insulting the all-mighty god that is the US Federal government. a muslim seeing mohammed's picture pissed on is not as enraged than today's leftists at someone, anyone, speaking out against Obama and his massive sprawling invasive government.

 

[KingOfBBN]

You have to laugh at liberals with garbage like this.

 

[Free_Salato_Blue]

No-one in Oregon is pointing guns at anyone. There is any law enforcement of any level within 50 miles of these freeloaders/trespassers. Thankfully there are now some smart people at the FBI, and are just going to let these people walk away rather than create another Ruby Ridge or Waco.

Which is sad for liberals like you & many others on twitter, who want them gunned down like dogs for insulting the all-mighty god that is the US Federal government. a muslim seeing mohammed's picture pissed on is not as enraged than today's leftists at someone, anyone, speaking out against Obama and his massive sprawling invasive government.

You're deflecting the question with unknowing personal judgments.

I have issue with anyone like these militia or black lives matter protesters setting up road blocks on public roads.
Best thing for the FBI to do, is cut off all the utilities and charge Bundy for any damages incurred.
Why do they need to be heavily armed if it's peaceful protesting?
And they all are protesting for criminals/deadbeats like Bundy who did not pay usage fees to graze, Hammons here are arsonists that luckily did not kill anyone or Micheal Brown who was a strong arm robber.

This is what a Bundy protest should look like.

 

[KopiKat]

You're deflecting the question with unknowing personal judgments.

I have issue with anyone like these militia or black lives matter protesters setting up road blocks on public roads.
Best thing for the FBI to do, is cut off all the utilities and charge Bundy for any damages incurred.
Why do they need to be heavily armed if it's peaceful protesting?
And they all are protesting for criminals/deadbeats like Bundy who did not pay usage fees to graze, Hammons here are arsonists that luckily did not kill anyone or Micheal Brown who was a strong arm robber.

This is what a Bundy protest should look like.

again, you couldn't resist sliding in a comparative example in your reply to indicate that you want to see the Hammond group murdered by the govt. You are pathetic. Never mind the fact that for decades the Hammond's had rights to their property, had rights to the use of their resources, and as those things were restricted for years on end by the federal govt. this is where the conditions exist. And while what happened to Michael Brown was indeed unfortunate, he never had a right to anything he took. STFU.

 

[Free_Salato_Blue]

"Their" property?, you mean the public Refuge that was in place 50 years before the Hammonds had their own personal property.
They may have had decades of renting rights on Federal lands but also decades of violations pertaining to management.
If you set fire in the Daniel Boone forest, you likely will get 5 years also.

 

[JumperJack]

So if you set fire to your back yard in order to save your house but the fire burns over into my back yard, it's ok? Their attempted back fires (the 2006 arson case, that is) torched taxpayer land in an attempt to save their own property. That's not a square deal, and that's ignoring the additional threat those new fires posed to the firefighters who were already fighting the lightning-derived fires

These are hundreds of thousands of acres of nothing but brush. Not quite the same logic as two half acre lots.

And frankly, where does any government gain the power to tell you, me, or anybody else when you can and cannot protect your own property? I don't believe you'd watch your property burn out of respect for spotless old Uncle Sam.

 

[From-the-stands]

"liberals like you & many others on twitter, who want them gunned down like dogs for insulting the all-mighty god"

again, you couldn't resist sliding in a comparative example in your reply to indicate that you want to see the Hammond group murdered by the govt.

I don't think your thoughts are grounded in any kind of reality. This is nut case stuff.

Where has anyone on this board said anything to the effect that they want the renegade militia group "gunned down like dogs" , or "murdered by the government"?

You wouldn't happen to be preppers, too, wouldya?

 

[JumperJack]

Pardon me for believing sworn testimony documented by the US DoJ

Alrighty then. Thank goodness all sworn testimony is truthful testimony.

The government wanted their land, and will now have it. Nothing to see here.

 

[krazykats]

I wish that today Obama would issue a gun ban via executive order, and then order these people to be burned alive. Then act as if it's just everyday typical stupid people doing things that result in drastic measures.

I might would die of laughter.

 

[Mime-Is-Money]

The government wanted their land, and will now have it. Nothing to see here.

They prolly won't lose their ranch. I'm guessing a handful of idiots will pool together funds to settle their fines.

They also prolly won't start unsanctioned fires going forward either.

You have to realize there's a difference in maintaining sanctioned fires and being convicted of federal arson charges by a jury of your peers in which the minimum sentence of the conviction for 1 charge is 5 years.

Later Edit : The Hammonds are not going to lose their ranch. The fines were previously paid.

 

[Willy4UK]

And frankly, where does any government gain the power to tell you, me, or anybody else when you can and cannot protect your own property?

Eminent Domain. You can protect your property, but just not against the goobermint.

 

[jamo0001]

Alrighty then. Thank goodness all sworn testimony is truthful testimony.

The government wanted their land, and will now have it. Nothing to see here.

so when you're confronted with an unsubstantiated YouTube rant by a guy (Ammon Bundy) who had next to nothing to do with this situation until it was politicized VERSUS sworn testimony by an eye witness, you say "meh, both are biased". Please.

 

[MegaBlue05]

If they do that in our age of 24/7 media cycle, they will make martyrs of them and set off a shit storm that there's no coming back from.

I seldom agree with you on these issues, but you got this one right .

I'd just cut their water and power and let them ride it out. They'll either prove the really do belong in 1874 or they'll quit and go home when they're cold and hungry.

 

[Willy4UK]

I seldom agree with you on these issues, but you got this one right .

I'd just cut their water and power and let them ride it out. They'll either prove the really do belong in 1874 or they'll quit and go home when they're cold and hungry.

Mega, I hate Christianity too. But I'd bet if you take out the religion aspect, you'd fall more in line with Heismans thoughts too. Don't let liberal Christians paint a different picture of conservatives. Conservatives do no equal belief in Jesus Christ. It's Bullshit. Join us libertarians and fix this country.

Democrats and Republicans are ANTI AMERICAN

 

[TransyCat09]

I haven't looked into too much, but did see in passing that the grandson has some mental health issues. Enough that the judge even commented on it. May not be true, just thought I read that.

Regardless of the specifics, it is pretty common in the West for the BLM to bend over people for whatever reason they see fit. Brush fires being left unattended and spreading out of control and destroying private property, waterways being diverted and destroying land, etc. Basically, there is no good reason for the federal government to own as much land as they do.

 

[bigblueinsanity]

You're deflecting the question with unknowing personal judgments.

I have issue with anyone like these militia or black lives matter protesters setting up road blocks on public roads.
Best thing for the FBI to do, is cut off all the utilities and charge Bundy for any damages incurred.
Why do they need to be heavily armed if it's peaceful protesting?
And they all are protesting for criminals/deadbeats like Bundy who did not pay usage fees to graze, Hammons here are arsonists that luckily did not kill anyone or Micheal Brown who was a strong arm robber.

This is what a Bundy protest should look like.

Why do they have to be peacefully armed if theyre peacefully protesting? Its not necessarily a need. But its rights theyre exercising. Both the 1st and 2nd amendment. You dont have to pick and choose your rights, you get them all.

Now, some of the other things theyre doing are criminal. But bearing arms and protesting alone isnt illegal.

Eminent Domain. You can protect your property, but just not against the goobermint.

Eminent domain is terrible, but an entrenched right enjoyed by the state. Even more so after the terrible SCOTUS decision coming out of Cincinnati a few years back. But....the 5th amendment guarantees no taking without just compensation. From what Ive read, the "state" has been trying to effectuate in a way that circumvents the 5th amendment.

 

[jamo0001]

I haven't looked into too much, but did see in passing that the grandson has some mental health issues. Enough that the judge even commented on it. May not be true, just thought I read that.

The only place I saw that was on that "conservativetreehouse" blog and they didn't provide a citation for those claims.

 

[P19978]

... liberal Christians

What is this creature you speak of lol?

 

[jamo0001]

What is this creature you speak of lol?

episcopalians

 

[Willy4UK]

What is this creature you speak of lol?

There's a lot man. Just saying...

 

[JumperJack]

so when you're confronted with an unsubstantiated YouTube rant by a guy (Ammon Bundy) who had next to nothing to do with this situation until it was politicized VERSUS sworn testimony by an eye witness, you say "meh, both are biased". Please.

I haven't seen the YouTube video and the only Bundy I care about is Al (not that I need Youtube to illustrate Federal overreach). But it is interesting what some people have to say about the sworn testimony that got these guys thrown in jail:

"Federal attorneys, Frank Papagni, hunted down a witness that was not mentally capable to be a credible witness. Dusty Hammond (grandson and nephew) testified that Steven told him to start a fire. He was 13 at the time and 24 when he testified (11 years later). At 24 Dusty had been suffering with mental problems for many years. He had estranged his family including his mother. Judge Hogan noted that Dusty’s memories as a 13-year-old boy were not clear or credible. He allowed the prosecution to continually use Dusty’s testimony anyway. When speaking to the Hammonds about this testimony, they understood that Dusty was manipulated and expressed nothing but love for their troubled grandson."

As for bias: the 13 year old evidently had some hard feelings against the uncle, for reasons I can't find.

Does this sound like a credible witness to you?

 

[JumperJack]

They prolly won't lose their ranch. I'm guessing a handful of idiots will pool together funds to settle their fines.

They also prolly won't start unsanctioned fires going forward either.

You have to realize there's a difference in maintaining sanctioned fires and being convicted of federal arson charges by a jury of your peers in which the minimum sentence of the conviction for 1 charge is 5 years.

Later Edit : The Hammonds are not going to lose their ranch. The fines were previously paid.

As time goes on, the fines and legal fees will certainly weaken them. It is impossible to say whether they will or won't lose the land.

As for what I realize: the punishment here doesn't fit the crime. (The original judge knew this, and I'd say he is as good an authority as anybody on "the Paddock"). The question isn't about whether they broke the law, it's whether the law is just or not. Any sane person has to question the notion of a mandatory minimum sentence instead of common sense justice. Again, another strike against the Feds. (If this were a drug sentence, some of you would be having a fit.)

Finally, I think you are well aware that a jury of their actual "peers" would never have convicted them to begin with. I suspect their "peers" would know the difference in a backfire and arson.

 

[From-the-stands]

"Judge Hogan noted that Dusty’s memories as a 13-year-old boy were not clear or credible. He allowed the prosecution to continually use Dusty’s testimony anyway. When speaking to the Hammonds about this testimony, they understood that Dusty was manipulated and expressed nothing but love for their troubled grandson."

As for bias: the 13 year old evidently had some hard feelings against the uncle, for reasons I can't find.

Does this sound like a credible witness to you?

Jesus, maybe because his uncle made him start a fire that has nearly ruined his life?

 

[KopiKat]

Where has anyone on this board said anything to the effect that they want the renegade militia group "gunned down like dogs" , or "murdered by the government"?

It doesn't take much to read between the lines for some posters (give it a try sometime), nor does it take much to tell which posters have probably never read a decent book.

 

[From-the-stands]

It doesn't take much to read between the lines for some posters (give it a try sometime), nor does it take much to tell which posters have probably never read a decent book.

Alright Kopi, give us your top ten book list. I gotta know what you're reading.

 

[jamo0001]

I haven't seen the YouTube video and the only Bundy I care about is Al (not that I need Youtube to illustrate Federal overreach). But it is interesting what some people have to say about the sworn testimony that got these guys thrown in jail:

"Federal attorneys, Frank Papagni, hunted down a witness that was not mentally capable to be a credible witness. Dusty Hammond (grandson and nephew) testified that Steven told him to start a fire. He was 13 at the time and 24 when he testified (11 years later). At 24 Dusty had been suffering with mental problems for many years. He had estranged his family including his mother. Judge Hogan noted that Dusty’s memories as a 13-year-old boy were not clear or credible. He allowed the prosecution to continually use Dusty’s testimony anyway. When speaking to the Hammonds about this testimony, they understood that Dusty was manipulated and expressed nothing but love for their troubled grandson."

As for bias: the 13 year old evidently had some hard feelings against the uncle, for reasons I can't find.

Does this sound like a credible witness to you?

Credible enough to get a conviction. Several of the columns (all of which originated before this became a Culture Wars issue) say that "multiple" witnesses corroborated the story.

EDIT: Also, isn't that big long quote just a copy/paste from the Bundy website that keeps getting passed around? The thing with like fourteen different paragraphs? Every time that thing has been linked on different sites/posts, it never comes with citations for its claims and it is always a copy/paste.

 

[Mime-Is-Money]

Finally, I think you are well aware that a jury of their actual "peers" would never have convicted them to begin with. I suspect their "peers" would know the difference in a backfire and arson.

They did know the difference, hence the conviction. The case was tried in the Hammond's home county.

I don't agree with the sentence (if it's a first time offender, unlike the Hammonds), but that's neither here nor there. The jury agreed with the sentence though based on the evidence presented, which you still only have a fraction of at your disposal.

 

[Mime-Is-Money]

"Federal attorneys, Frank Papagni, hunted down a witness that was not mentally capable to be a credible witness. Dusty Hammond (grandson and nephew) testified that Steven told him to start a fire. He was 13 at the time and 24 when he testified (11 years later). At 24 Dusty had been suffering with mental problems for many years. He had estranged his family including his mother. Judge Hogan noted that Dusty’s memories as a 13-year-old boy were not clear or credible. He allowed the prosecution to continually use Dusty’s testimony anyway. When speaking to the Hammonds about this testimony, they understood that Dusty was manipulated and expressed nothing but love for their troubled grandson."

As for bias: the 13 year old evidently had some hard feelings against the uncle, for reasons I can't find.

Does this sound like a credible witness to you?

Aside from the skewed description published on ConservativeTreeHouse.com, he seemed like a credible witness to the jury.

 

[KopiKat]

Alright Kopi, give us your top ten book list. I gotta know what you're reading.

It would take some serious effort to really sit down and decide what my 10 favorite novels are, and I assume that's what you're asking about, and it would probably include those that affected me for the time / age when I read them and not so much for the content / achievement of the writer. I honestly don't know if I could produce such a list. Atlas Shrugged would be on the list. So would Tess of the d'Ubervilles, probably the most tragic and sad story I've ever read, yet wonderful. A couple of Vonnegut books might make my top 10 (read them all - Hocus Pocus is my favorite, although "Five" is famously known as a critically important work). In that same genre as Vonnegut I might add T.C. Boyle's World's End. Then there are many very important 19th century classics with their brilliant social indictments for the period (which to include in a top 10 list???), the most underrated of that purpose (social indictment) in my opinion is Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein." Dickens' Tale of Two Cities, Dumas' Count of Monte Cristo, Hugo's Les Miserable, etc. For a short piece, Steinbeck's of Mice and Men is an important work that made an impression on me in my teens (Grapes would not make my top 10, sorry), Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, Hinton's Outsiders is a book that all young people should read as is To Kill a Mockingbird. Heller's Catch-22 is a personal favorite, but not a book that fits in with the others in this group as having a personal impact for the time / age when I read it. I just liked it a lot. I will also mention an odd little book titled "The Education of Little Tree." Been a very long time since I've read it or have even seen a copy of it. Can't remember the author's name, but it has a very bizarre source for the subject. Wonderful story. Went through a period when I liked reading my grandfather's Zane Grey books. Rambling a response for you here. Again, these are not necessarily works that I would consider the top 10, but probably near enough to "my" top 10 because of what they meant personally for the time / age when I read them. What do you like reading?

 

[Mojocat]

From the Daily Beast. Pretty good....

"When The New York Timestells the rubes that it’s time to hand in their guns, when The Washington Postsuggests that Jesus is ashamed of them for not welcoming Syrian refugees the week after a terrorist attack, people react not because they love guns or hate Syrians, but because their natural urge to being told by coastal liberals that they’re awful people and that they should just obey and shut up is to issue a certain Anglo-Saxon verb and pronoun combination with all the vigor they can muster. And if they can’t say it themselves, they’ll find someone who will, even if it’s a crude jerk from Queens who can’t make a point without raising his pinky like a Mafia goon explaining the vig to you after you’ve had a bad day at the track."

 

[Willy4UK]

One thing I have learned recently. Shocked to find out that Dem/Repub voters cause cancer.

 

[bigblueinsanity]

Obama continues his rule by signing another executive order. I dont disagree with the substance of it, but the fact he continues to circumvent legislators is ridiculous.

Individual liberties continue to be stripped away, bit by bit. A very dangerous precedent for this country.

 

[KingOfBBN]

I'm sorry but eff the government. The hardcore libs are all too willing to continue to strip us of our freedoms bit by bit.

With the way Obama talks and his anti-American supporters, you'd never have known that we were the fastest to ever become the world's super power and had been successful these previous 200+ years. They have wanted to and have wrecked it all and sat in motion the downfall of it.