Army Officer on Oregon Killing: 'This could be the First Shot of 2nd American Revolution'

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: stevieray
it sounds like the FBI has released a drone video.....but no audio w

Why do you think a drone would have audio?

That doesn't look too good on the FBI.

Yes it does actually, it shows he was not "dragged from his car and executed", it shows he was shot when he went to reach to his waist.

Establish that the drone could not or did not have audio capability......great point. Otherwise I don't think I'll be buying your dismissal.

Ditto for the FBI. Never existed ? No problem with the FBI. Did ? Big problem with the FBI.

Opinions are not the end of anything, most of all this event.

originally posted by: Rocker2013

originally posted by: blood0fheroes

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Loyalist to the US Constitution?

Abso-dang-lutely.

If that is truly the case, then frankly I have to say : You're doing it wrong.

Dissent, grumbling, disobedience, and the wary sideways glare at government have ever been the hallmark of true American patriotism.

Being suspicious of those in power is a natural thing, that doesn't mean you get to usurp the democratic rights of the public to push your individual idealistic causes.

You see, you guys seem to forget that a real Patriot supports the rights of the people to elect a government to represent them. As is usually the case, the right wing seems to think that democracy is fine until something happens that they personally disagree with, then it's time to forget democracy and the Constitution, forget the rights of other citizens, they want to have their cake and eat it too.

It doesn't work like that.

By all means be suspicious of elected officials, watch them like a hawk, call them out on their dodgy dealings and self-enriching ways, but don't ever try to justify terrorism against fellow countrymen and women as though it's "patriotic" to attack their democracy.

Your post reminds me of the old "oh suuure there's freedom of speech.....you just better expect repercussions if you say something I don't like". That's ridiculous. Free speech can mean only "no repercussions". "Fire....theater" has legal repercussions, and rightly so. All other non-illegal speech....shout it from the rooftops, and everybody else can listen or GTFO.

So....there is no limit to protest, suspicion, dissent, unless you harm someone else tangibly. You're also supposed to get a permit, lol. And these guys should have been arrested, just not your blanket dismissal of the right to protest.

You're not ususrping anybody's demoocratic rights by disagreeing with who they elected, for God's sake.

a reply to: Rocker2013
Did you learn a new word and feel the need to use it in each post?

So I take it you went to Oregon and checked this out for yourself and saw that the Constitution they were using wasn't the "real" one? After writing trash like you've spewed above, I hope you don't expect anyone to take you seriously.
If you think we're a democracy, it is you who needs to take just a little time and actually read the documents which are the foundation of our government. It isn't a very complicated contract really and there are plenty of writings on the complete background and views of the authors.
But if you want to believe what the half-wits on CNN and MSNBC say, and call that being loyal to thought and reason, it's your gig!

a reply to: Rocker2013
My, my aren't you a good little Loyalist to the Empire! Were it 1776 you would be singing the praises of Good King George because after all, you don't drink tea.
If you don't know your history you are destined to be in the midst of a repeat of it.
Don't you know that there were warrants for the founding fathers when they rebelled? When they'd had all they could stand of the over-reaching of the Crown?
There was no terror in Oregon until the feds opened fire. There was no violence until they shot a man like a dog on the side of the road in an ambush.
Calling for a return to Constitutional law isn't terrorism. Even if you happen to be armed when you are making those calls and holding a protest in a vacant federal building.
Man, if you and your ilk had been in charge in the '60s the war in Vietnam would still be going on and all those anti-war protesters would still be in jail. We took over a lot of college campus buildings. As my old friend and hero, Abbie Hoffman, used to say, "One foot in the street and one foot in the voting booth."
Had they actually been threatening anyone they would have been charged. It isn't hard to get a warrant for threatening but there were no warrants for threats or terrorism. You've been misled and lied to and you're not open-minded enough to be able to recognize lies when they are spewed your way by the Big Six, loyal arm of the Empire. I feel for you but it's up to you to become educated beyond what the government-sponsored schools wanted you to know about the rights of US citizens under the Constitution. The msm isn't going to help you out with that. They're more into hate and violence and getting people all paranoid about guns. That's what pays the bills and gives their CEOs those big salaries.
These peaceful protesters that weren't vandalizing and destroying property, weren't shooting people, but were reaching out and building a network scared the devil out of the local and state politicians. When people in the next counties started showing up to community meetings and learning their rights, it was just too much. They had to be stopped and the sure way to stop a non-violent protest is to introduce violence.

There is nothing in the US Constitution that allows for the laws of the land to be broken by those that consider themselves above those laws ... whether Washington bureaucrat or Nevada rancher.

There is nothing patriotic about encouraging others to spit on the Constitution and trample underfoot to save a few dollars on grazing fees, or to cover up poaching, or to justify grown men playing "Soldier."

a reply to: diggindirt

Are you so eager to blame the Feds that you are blind to who and what these guys represent?

They are fringe LDS Mormons and Sovereign Citizen zealots who are in it for their own bank accounts. Doesn't it bother you that these people are able to manipulate your feelings about the government into supporting their phony cause?

They are counting on people like you to believe and support them without looking into who and what they really are.

a reply to: Leonidas

Please make it clear to everyone how this has made them money.

Should we kill all LDS Mormons?

a reply to: onequestion

They are part of a fringe sect of LDS Mormoms. Grazing cattle for free on federal land to fatten their cattle to increase their bottom line is the only thing that the Bundys and Fincum care about.

But you would know that because you have firm and solid opinions on the matter and you wouldn't do that unless you had researched who they are, where they are from and what they stand for...would you?

a reply to: Leonidas

I think the cattle grazing debate is more complicated then that.

And I don't care if they are Mormons or LDS Mormons or any of that.

I agree that the federal government shouldn't acquisitioning all of the northwestern United States.

It's all about the money.
They want to take the land & use it for themselves because their backwards ass lifestyles can't support them financially anymore.

There is widespread anger over the declining fortunes of the rural West. Nearly everyone in Burns says the town is dying, the good-paying jobs are gone, the schools are closing, the youth are leaving. People in Harney County and in many rural counties in the West want to use the timber, the range, the water, the mineral resources for economic development, and they blame the federal government and environmentalists for strangling their communities.

www.rawstory.com...

K~

a reply to: aethertek

Doesn't the BLM take the land and profit from it?

a reply to: onequestion

Then you are not paying attention to any of the facts.

a reply to: Leonidas
Facts are just details.
You need to look a the big picture.

a reply to: onequestion

BLM already has the land, these greedy gimps want to take federal land (our parks & recreation sites) to use for their profit.

Can Eco-regs be a pain?, sure especially here in OR but the other option is to allow unfettered destruction of wildlife areas.
Screw that, I like my woods just the way they are.
Hey & I can earn a living without destroying my environment, maybe these people need to spend some cow money on some books & educate themselves,,,oh wait never mind.

K~

a reply to: Phage

The big picture is that Fincum, Bundys et.al. have a very specific agenda that is formed by - and conforms with - their Sovereign Citizen beliefs and their Fringe FLDS beliefs. Not a very secret agenda for anyone who does a least some research on who and what they are.

They want that land for their own use, not anybody else's.

a reply to: Leonidas

I agree.
I've expressed my opinion on multiple occasions.

originally posted by: Leonidas
a reply to: Phage

The big picture is that Fincum, Bundys et.al. have a very specific agenda that is formed by - and conforms with - their Sovereign Citizen beliefs and their Fringe FLDS beliefs. Not a very secret agenda for anyone who does a least some research on who and what they are.

They want that land for their own use, not anybody else's.

Not to butt in ... but your observation here ... along with the fact that Mr. Finicum made his living by "working the system" of child foster care (aka sucking off the teat of the Big Government Welfare State) should have made these folks the antithesis of the right-wings mantra damning the social safety net and lauding personal responsibility.

How sadly ironic that their rules don't seem to be consistent when their "heroes" are at stake.

a reply to: Gryphon66
So in your mind people who take in children nobody else wants are "working the system" ?
Can you not see that these people are the very embodiment of the social safety net, working with religious organizations to nurture homeless children? And they aren't entitled to the same federal subsidies that birth parents enjoy?
I've seen some really, really low-down, dirty smears but yours is by far the lowest I've encountered.
Go ahead and paint with that big ole brush of yours. Spread the hate and dissension about all those really evil people who open their homes to foster children. You are being quite a good subject of the Emperor. May his eyes always shine on you.

a reply to: diggindirt

Nope, I fully support the foster-care system.

My statement is that Finicum's gaming the system to provide his only source of income was a blatant example of abuse of public welfare. I don't share your unending hero worship of the man, nor are there any facts to back up your assertions.

I'm saying that right-wingers routinely cry about anyone benefiting from public welfare ... apparently except when it is one of "their own." The man lived off the largesse of the Government AT THE SAME TIME HE WAS CRYING ABOUT THE TYRANNY OF THE SAME GOVERNMENT!

Good god! Do you think anyone is interested in your unending personal commentary? We're not!

You keep lying and twisting anything anyone else says because your own paltry arguments are nonsense.

I'm an American and I support the Constitution and the laws of the land. Demonstrate otherwise or back off.

Oh, and this silly trite garbage about "the Emperor" and the fantasies about the American Founders borders on psychosis.

a reply to: Gryphon66

How the hell does anyone know he collects welfare for those kids?