Reports of "Militia Takeover" in Oregon

[zincwarrior]

They actually do have several legitimate grievances. The BLM has run amok in Nevada, and the Bundys were somewhat caught in the middle.

I would disagree. The criminal acts had nothing to do with the Bundy/BLM in another state situation, but with the Hammonds, who immediately disavowed all of it.

What all the militia/ Bundy types were there for is for...reasons...

 

[zukiphile]

Zinc, why are state borders important to your analysis?

 

[buck460XVR]

They actually do have several legitimate grievances.

I got some legitimate grievances too. Like the city making me separate my garbage and keeping my lawn mowed and sidewalks shoveled. 'ell, they even make me pay for the water they get for free! I even have to pay a tax on a man made lake in the city, I didn't even want!

Still, I bet iffin I took over City Hall by force, made public statements about dying for my cause, tried to run over a LEO while trying to avoid a roadblock, when trying to get out of town with a stolen city vehicle and then ran towards the officers at the roadblock, while reaching for something inside my jacket........I'd get shot. What are the odds, eh?

 

[zincwarrior]

Zinc, why are state borders important to your analysis?

Because one event had nothing to do with the other.
*A thousand miles away.
*Different parties.
*Different claim-criminal arson vs. leasing/tax dispute. Further the crime was not at issue, only the sentence was.
*The parties at issue didn't want these outsiders involved and disavowed them completely.

If Party A has a dispute with the IRS, that has nothing to do with Party B committing arson a thousand miles away.

I see they have all been indicted now. Excellent. Now the ones still at the office can rot and eventually come out with their tails between their legs and all their stuff is now forfeit. Tee hee.

Quote:
They actually do have several legitimate grievances.

I got some legitimate grievances too. Like the city making me separate my garbage and keeping my lawn mowed and sidewalks shoveled. 'ell, they even make me pay for the water they get for free! I even have to pay a tax on a man made lake in the city, I didn't even want!

Still, I bet iffin I took over City Hall by force, made public statements about dying for my cause, tried to run over a LEO while trying to avoid a roadblock, when trying to get out of town with a stolen city vehicle and then ran towards the officers at the roadblock, while reaching for something inside my jacket........I'd get shot. What are the odds, eh?

Its just this sort of logic and facts that has no place in this thread.

 

[zukiphile]

Zinc, why are state borders important to your analysis?

Because one event had nothing to do with the other.
*A thousand miles away.
*Different parties.
*Different claim-criminal arson vs. leasing/tax dispute. Further the crime was not at issue, only the sentence was.
*The parties at issue didn't want these outsiders involved and disavowed them completely.

So it isn't really that the Bundys are from another state that is the issue, but their geographic distance?

As noted previously, there is an underlying land right dispute in common. The distance between people involved or how the BLM reacted wouldn't render them unrelated.

One wonders whether the locals seek distance between themselves and the occupiers for reasons of PR. I am given to understand that the Hammonds had fairly wide local support.

 

[zincwarrior]

So it isn't really that the Bundys are from another state that is the issue, but their geographic distance?

I don't know how you got from A to B on that one. That is just one of many issues of difference. In fact, other than the Bundy's showing up, there are no similarities between the two.

As noted previously, there is an underlying land right dispute in common.

(edited as could be viewed as hostile) Only to you and a very few other supporters. Its as much a land dispute as when a homeowner shoots a burglar. Its a crime of arson that spread onto government land. There is no dispute of the arson. There is no dispute it went onto government land. There is no dispute it was government land. The Oregon office they seized is not even BLM. Jeez did any of these yokels even graduate Jr. High?

The distance between people involved or how the BLM reacted wouldn't render them unrelated.

You're correct. Good thing those aren't the issue. The issue is ARSON.

 

[zukiphile]

So it isn't really that the Bundys are from another state that is the issue, but their geographic distance?

I don't know how you got from A to B on that one.

It was easy. I read what you wrote.

A thousand miles away.

As noted previously, there is an underlying land right dispute in common.

Only in your mind.

You are mistaken. See the prior page. If you want a more detailed explanation, let me know.

 

[zincwarrior]

Just because you said it in the prior page doesn't make it true.

Its an issue about mandatory sentencing in an arson case. There are literally no facts that support your BLM nonsense.

But as noted all involved are either in jail, going to jail, or dead. So alls well that ends well.

 

[zukiphile]

This episode is about arson in roughly the same way the French Revolution was about cake recipes.

Just because you said it in the prior page doesn't make it true.

That would be a pertinent observation if I had asserted that it was true because I "said" [sic] it.

Fortunately, that isn't the assertion I made, and I am not the only one to have made it. Once you've had the underlying land rights dispute described for you, it is conspicuous to return to assert that there are no common issues.

There are literally no facts that support your BLM nonsense.

So, assuming you've read this thread or even the parts of the thread to which you've been directed, which I admit may not be a valid assumption, you may have blinkered yourself to the wider issue, welcome the death of one of these characters as "good news", and look forward to people forfeiting their property. "Tee Hee".

Well done.

 

[zincwarrior]

This episode is about arson in roughly the same way the French Revolution was about cake recipes.

They were charged with arson. The Hammonds are not disputing the charge, only the mandatory minimum of the sentence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by zincwarrior
Just because you said it in the prior page doesn't make it true.
That would be a pertinent observation if I had asserted that it was true because I "said" [sic] it.

Fortunately, that isn't the assertion I made, and I am not the only one to have made it. Once you've had the underlying land rights dispute described for you, it is conspicuous to return to assert that there are no common issues.

I’ve heard it described, just reject it out of hand as being equal parts ridiculous and insane.

Quote:
Originally Posted by zincwarrior
There are literally no facts that support your BLM nonsense.
So, assuming you've read this thread or even the parts of the thread to which you've been directed, which I admit may not be a valid assumption, you may have blinkered yourself to the wider issue, welcome the death of one of these characters as "good news", and look forward to people forfeiting their property. "Tee Hee".

Well done.

Yep. I can’t stand criminals. Its kind of a hall mark of law and order guys who believe in a nation of laws. The only thing sad about it is that we missed out on a good perp walk. Hopefully the last four loser criminals can provide that on their way out when they surrender.

 

[buck460XVR]

I am given to understand that the Hammonds had fairly wide local support.

Then you are given to misunderstanding. While the militants tried to recruit the locals to their cause, they were unsuccessful and only had a very small group of local folks that even sympathized with their cause. Even the Hammonds, who's sentencing originally started this ordeal, distanced themselves from the occupiers.

 

[thallub]

Hopefully the last four loser criminals can provide that on their way out when they surrender.

Two of those remaining at the wildlife refuge have rap sheets:

David Fry:

In Ohio, Fry has several convictions for disorderly conduct, as well as possession of drugs and drug paraphernalia.

Sean Anderson:

Sean Anderson is facing misdemeanor charges in Wisconsin for resisting an officer, possession of drug paraphernalia and possession of THC, the intoxicating chemical in marijuana.

He also has pleaded guilty to a series of misdemeanors in recent years: domestic abuse in December 2010, disorderly conduct in 2008, criminal trespass in a dwelling in 2002, and disorderly conduct in 1999.

http://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/4-holdouts-at-oregon-refuge-have-diverse-backgrounds-2/

Two former occupants of the refuge lied about being in the USMC. One is a convicted felon.

 

[zukiphile]

I am given to understand that the Hammonds had fairly wide local support.

Then you are given to misunderstanding. While the militants tried to recruit the locals to their cause,...

Emphasis added.

Where I read that the Hammonds had the support of a congressman and that state judges seen as insufficiently supportive were subjected to a recall effort, that speaks to a local support far wider than a few dozen occupiers.

The congressman's help can't have been too toxic politically; he was re-elected after that.

 

[zincwarrior]

Wait, if they are militants then we have to immediately drop JDAM's on them, because thats what we do to militants. Man I thought I was harsh.

 

[buck460XVR]

Where I read that the Hammonds had the support of a congressman

Would that be Representative Walden? The thing is, the Hammonds did not take over the compound....the militants did. Kinda what this thread is about. Not the Hammonds. While he defended the Hammonds and said their punishment was too harsh, he also said the Militants went too far with their takeover and suggested they leave the compound and go home. I don't call that support.

 

[zincwarrior]

Quote:
Where I read that the Hammonds had the support of a congressman

Would that be Representative Walden? The thing is, the Hammonds did not take over the compound....the militants did. Kinda what this thread is about. Not the Hammonds. While he defended the Hammonds and said their punishment was too harsh, he also said the Militants went too far with their takeover and suggested they leave the compound and go home. I don't call that support.

Exactly. The Hammonds and their supporters want nothing to do with the Bundys and their fellow travelers.

 

[zukiphile]

Would that be Representative Walden?

No.

The reference was to Robert Smith in the mid 1990s.

The thing is, the Hammonds did not take over the compound....the militants did. Kinda what this thread is about. Not the Hammonds.

Note that both you and zincwarrior purport to know what this thread is about. You maintain that it is about the militants; he maintains that it is about Hammonds' arson.

It can be about both and can include an issue common to the Hammonds, the Bundys and the sagebrush rebellion more widely.

 

[zincwarrior]

It can be about both and can include an issue common to the Hammonds, the Bundys and the sagebrush rebellion more widely.

Except of course there is no issue common to the Hammonds and the Bundys. Why do not admit that they themselves want nothing to do with this circus?

 

[zukiphile]

Except of course there is no issue common to the Hammonds and the Bundys. Why do not admit that they themselves want nothing to do with this circus?

Again, your comments do not follow one another.

That the Hammonds "want nothing to do with" the former Bundy occupation cannot reasonably suggest that they share no common issues. Also note that Bundy the younger has also called for the occupation to terminate, so even on that issue, they don't occupy a position contrary to the Hammonds.

Again, let me know if you require a more detailed explanation.

 

[zincwarrior]

Again you seem to not understand the lack of relationship between the Bundys and their tax/lease dispute with the BLM and arson.

EDIT: I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree on this as we have come to an impasse.