Armed militia members seize federal wildlife refuge HQ in Oregon

posted at 9:31 am on January 3, 2016 by Jazz Shaw

It appears that we’ve got ourselves another militia standoff out West, this time in rural, eastern Oregon, where armed activists are taking issue with the federal government over control of a wildlife refuge and the fate of two ranchers who are supposed to be on the way to jail. Complicating the issue (at least in the eyes of the media) is the fact that the protest is being organized and led by three sons of Cliven Bundy, who I’m sure you all remember. A brief summary from the Washington Examiner.

Three of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy’s sons and what they claim are 150 militia members have occupied a federal building in eastern Oregon in order to keep two local ranchers out of prison, according to local reports.

The group is believed to be heavily-armed.

According to The Oregonian, the group seized the headquarters building at Malheur National Wildlife Refuge about 50 miles outside Burns, Ore. The remote facility was closed and unoccupied at the time.

Bundy and his supporters were in Oregon after two men were scheduled to go to prison on Monday for setting fires on federal land, according to a report by Oregon Public Broadcasting. The case has caused a stir in eastern Oregon because the two men were charged under anti-terrorism laws.

While this case has obviously been simmering for a while, it swelled out of proportion over the last few days. At the heart of the matter are ranchers Dwight Hammond and his son Steven. They were previously accused and convicted of arson for two fires which they set more than a decade ago which burned on parts of the federal wildlife refuge near their property. The first real dispute seems to have arisen over the nature and purpose of the fires, which the Hammonds claim were controlled and for reasonable purposes. (Washington Post)

Dwight Hammond, 73, and Steven Hammond, 46, said they lit the fires in 2001 and 2006 to reduce the growth of invasive plants and protect their property from wildfires.

The two were convicted of the arsons three years ago and served time — the father three months, the son one year. But a judge ruled their terms were too short under federal law and ordered them back to prison for about four years each.

Prosecutors disagreed with their explanation. Details on this are rather fuzzy, but at least some on the government side believe that one of the blazes was set as a deliberate case of arson to destroy evidence of illegal taking of game. (More on that stupid charge in a moment.) The other seemed to be a small controlled burn which got out of control during a dry period when fires were banned and it spread over into federal territory. John Hawkins at Right Wing News raises some questions about both the charges and the response which may cast the Hammonds in at least a slightly less sympathetic light, while still acknowledging that the government went way overboard here.

There were two fires involved. The first sounds like a straight up arson designed to cover up poaching. The second one sounded like it was merely irresponsible: A fire set while there was a burn ban that made it onto government property. That being said, the judge in the initial case thought the mandatory five year sentences were too harsh for the crimes committed. Unfortunately, he didn’t have the legal authority to reduce those sentences and both men were re-sentenced to jail.

Intelligent people can differ over whether the sentences are fair and of course, a peaceful protest is always fine. However, taking over a government building and trying to provoke a violent government response is so irresponsible that it borders on insane.

I was listening to an interview with one of the Bundys conducted by CNN’s Victor Blackwell this morning and there seem to be two almost completely unrelated issues at stake here. One is the case of the Hammonds. Clearly the protesters feel that the government has come down too hard on them and I completely agree. Even if the facts are as the prosecutors described them, this is pretty minor as far as “arson” goes and the men have already served time in jail. Why were they charged under terror related laws? There’s probably some sort of case to be made here about mandatory minimum sentences, but the other side of the coin is the fact that the Hammonds were (and presumably still are) not planning on defying the government and are ready to go back to jail tomorrow. If they aren’t hiding out with the militia at the wildlife refuge, that part of the showdown seems rather pointless.

The second point that Bundy and his followers are making seems to be that the federal government has unlawfully taken control of this land as a wildlife refuge and that the ranchers should be free to make use of it. In that regard, any sort of federal charges would have been inappropriate to begin with, though the courts clearly can’t (and won’t) see it that way. Look… I’ll be the first to agree that the government sets aside and lays claim to far too much land. Also, when it comes to the matter of “poaching” on federal land I have a huge problem with the idea of Washington restricting the right of people to feed themselves by taking game in The King’s Forrest and streams. I’d like to see a concerted national effort to begin discussing the federal surrender of at least some of these lands to the states and a revamping of hunting and fishing license laws, along with federal restrictions on trapping, hunting and fishing.

But… with all of that said, I’m with John Hawkins on this one. This is crazy. (And I know that’s not going to sit well with those regularly spoiling for a fight with the feds.) Taking armed troops in to seize control of a federal building and essentially daring the government to come get you is pretty much the course of last resort. This is the fight you choose to draw the line in the sand over? If the Hammonds aren’t seeking protection and are planning to continue their appeal through the normal legal channels, this armed insurrection isn’t being done for their benefit. If you’re doing it to try to stop the feds from exercising control over a wildlife refuge, well… nope. Sorry. Still crazy.

Harness all of that energy and enthusiasm into getting a legal team to begin challenging the federal government in court over it. It will be a long, hard slog, but you’ll garner a tremendous amount of support around the nation, particularly among conservatives and libertarians. Taking up arms over this will produce just the opposite result. It’s time to get the troops out of the building before somebody gets hurt and this turns into a literally bloody debacle.

BurnsMilitia


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Back when the Supreme Court ruled that the farmer could not feed his own cows the grain he raised himself.

Once they got their foot on our necks, they just keep mashing harder and harder.

Then Obama.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on January 3, 2016 at 5:25 PM

lexhamfox on January 3, 2016 at 1:08 PM
CivilDiscourse on January 3, 2016 at 12:56 PM

Attitudes like this only support those who are occupying the Wildlife Refuge headquarters.

The Hammonds got a raw deal, in their “re-sentencing”. Ferguson protesters burned down buildings – potentially with people in them. These guys just burned underbrush. The sentences that they have already served are reasonable. The “extended sentences” are not.

The Hammonds need to be released with time served, the Militia needs to go home, and everybody just needs to settle the f–k down.

SubmarineDoc on January 3, 2016 at 5:32 PM

livefreeonothersmoney does not understand that the IRS takes the % of your life.

Our only value in money/gold/property is the work our lives produce.

The government takes around 40% now.

Avg. age of 70.

They take 28 years of our lives now.

live free wants more from U S All to feed the non producers and illegals and other culls and frauds like Climate Change.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on January 3, 2016 at 5:33 PM

Remember the story about Koresh being a child molester? No proof of that ever came out, it was a story spread to the press by the ATF.

fossten on January 3, 2016 at 12:34 PM

The ATF also used the presence of a .50 Cal rifle as an excuse to use tanks, but when the fire was out no such a rifle was found.

The ATF lies, a lot. The Clintons of the federal agencies.

JIMV on January 3, 2016 at 5:35 PM

you guys realize that the protestors who vandalized baltimore and ferguson are all facing charges, and some have already been convictes, right?

everdiso on January 3, 2016 at 5:35 PM

Tell me what happens when the government takes nearly 30% of the land?

it keeps that land open for all to use, instead of becoming the private property of massive corporations?

everdiso on January 3, 2016 at 5:36 PM

The Commie Democrats who are now Marxist will not let U S All calm down.

They will pick and prod until they get the evil they seek.

It is what they are.

It is the duty of the sheep dogs to deal with the wolfs when they come in packs with intent to end things.

Be prepared.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on January 3, 2016 at 5:37 PM

Did I miss anything?

ShainS on January 3, 2016 at 5:46 PM

Harness all of that energy and enthusiasm into getting a legal team to begin challenging the federal government in court over it.

In these courts?

Ceteris Paribus on January 3, 2016 at 5:51 PM

Joe Dan scores again.

https://intellectualfroglegs.com/theres-a-new-sheriff-in-town-this-i-tell-you/

IDontCair on January 3, 2016 at 5:53 PM

they’ve not actually suffered personal of financial hardships because of it.

Rod on January 3, 2016 at 5:16 PM

Do you understand economics? I mean the most basics. Tell me what happens when the government takes nearly 30% of the land?

This is one of my arguments…not there’s.

CWforFreedom on January 3, 2016 at 5:22 PM

Having lost my business and home to the IRS

Rod on January 3, 2016 at 5:54 PM

Rod on January 3, 2016 at 5:54 PM

Don’t assume how others have been impacted and realize that all homeowners and renters are impacted…some more than others. Basic.Economics.

CWforFreedom on January 3, 2016 at 5:56 PM

In fact, it’s … interesting … how many people actually hate the government when, as I suspect for most here, they’ve not actually suffered personal of financial hardships because of it.

Rod on January 3, 2016 at 5:16 PM

You’re retarded. This country was created by people who hated government. It’s an experiment in how to create a weak decentralized government, which of course has failed.

DFCtomm on January 3, 2016 at 5:56 PM

you guys realize that the protestors who vandalized baltimore and ferguson are all facing charges, and some have already been convictes, right?

everdiso on January 3, 2016 at 5:35 PM

You ought to be banned you contemptible bigot. And not all Baltimore looters were prosecuted. Idiot.

hawkdriver on January 3, 2016 at 5:56 PM

Having lost my business and home to the IRS

Rod on January 3, 2016 at 5:54 PM


Oops I hit something before I was done.

What I was saying was that I understand the havoc the govt. can bring down on a person in a very personal level. I lost everything to the feds in ’98.

My point was that I suspect few in this thread have had to deal with that type of oppression whether it’s justified or not. (In my case I was partly to blame but that’s another story.)

Rod on January 3, 2016 at 6:00 PM

The Boston Tea Party was thrown by a bunch of reckless hooligans, too, but if it hadn’t been for incidents like that, the Revolution wouldn’t have started. I think of this as the pot boiling over. The real “hard core” types are going to be the first to start fighting the government, but that’s not what’s interesting. What’s interesting is that they’re a harbinger of the fact that the big middle rest-of-us are boiling, too, and could be next.

joe_doufu on January 3, 2016 at 6:04 PM

you guys realize that the protestors who vandalized baltimore and ferguson are all facing charges, and some have already been convictes, right?

lester on January 3, 2016 at 5:35 PM

LOL! “All” of them, Hockey Stick? You’re an unusually bad liar, unless you can provide credible and multi-sourced links that all of them have been charged.

Likewise, please provide proof, with specific details, of all of the convictions of protestors in Baltimore and Ferguson.

Some friendly advice, so far I’ve only found a single conviction from the Ferguson riots. And have found absolutely no evidence that “all” of those who vandalized Baltimore and Ferguson have in fact been formally charged.

Get back to us with your proof, and maybe we’ll stop laughing at you.

F-

Del Dolemonte on January 3, 2016 at 6:06 PM

lester on January 3, 2016 at 5:35 PM

HAHAHAHAHA………

BallisticBob on January 3, 2016 at 6:17 PM

Oops I hit something before I was done.

What I was saying was that I understand the havoc the govt. can bring down on a person in a very personal level. I lost everything to the feds in ’98.

My point was that I suspect few in this thread have had to deal with that type of oppression whether it’s justified or not. (In my case I was partly to blame but that’s another story.)

Rod on January 3, 2016 at 6:00 PM

Go get bent, most of us have already suffered with the higher health insurance premiums thanks to Obama and the GOP. It’s hurt my ability to take care of my family financially, and I take that VERY personally.

I guess you’ll move the goalposts though.

fossten on January 3, 2016 at 6:27 PM

Lexham was one smug know it all. Usually those that are too full of themselves eventually screw up.

CWforFreedom on January 3, 2016 at 5:18 PM

I haven’t yet. ;)

fossten on January 3, 2016 at 6:31 PM

I guess you’ll move the goalposts though.

fossten on January 3, 2016 at 6:27 PM

I’m not moving the goal posts. If you feel that having higher insurance premiums is equal to me losing my business and home, or these people in Oregaon being thrown in jail then so be it. However I

Rod on January 3, 2016 at 6:34 PM

I have mixed feelings about what’s going on out West. You have very wealthy landowners like Ted Turner, who owns over a million acres. You got ranchers complaining about wolves being re-introduced to Yellowstone, even though they were there first and deserve some piece of habitat. You have ranchers who have been using public land to enrich themselves.

If you open up all the land to private interests, what’s to prevent entities worse than the federal government from owning it? Guys, I hate to say it but conservatives have been wrong before on some huge issues, so don’t assume you’re right on this one. Foreign nationals could buy up millions of acres. Other special interests will buy up gigantic tracts. Maybe we should just be conservative and keep the land use to a minimum, so our future grandchildren will have parks they can visit. The land can always be developed 100 years from now.

cimbri on January 3, 2016 at 6:36 PM

Tell me what happens when the government takes nearly 30% of the land?

it keeps that land open for all to use, instead of becoming the private property of massive corporations?

lester on January 3, 2016 at 5:36 PM

LOL! The Stupid is certainly with you today, Peter Puck…

First of all, the national parks and national forests were never created to be “peoples’ parks” as you so quaintly believe.

Author Bill Bryson explained it best in his 1998 book “A Walk in the Woods”, which Robert Redford made into an absolutely horrible movie just last year:

These were not intended to be parks. Private companies would be granted leases to extract minerals and forest timber.

-snip-

There are 378,000 miles of roads in America’s national forests. That may seem a meaningless figure, but look at it this way-it is 8 times the total mileage of America’s Interstate Highway system.

-snip-

Of the Forest Service’s 150 million acres of loggable land, about two thirds is held in reserve for the future. The remaining one third-49 million acres, or roughly the size of Ohio-is available for logging.

Hate to break it to you, Claude, but the US National Forest Service is a “massive corporation”, as big if not bigger than such companies as Weyerhaeuser.

F- #1.

And you’re lying when you claim that National Forest land is “open for all to use”; here in my home state of New Hampshire, many parts of our White Mountain National Forest are closed
to all public entry. In many of these cases, those sections have been closed to protect rare species of plants, especially endangered Alpine plants above timberline. We also have many Wilderness Areas in our National Forest, these all have heavy restrictions on public usage.

F- #2.

And out in the western US, many Wilderness Areas in National Forests are closed to some public activities; the best example of this is the many sections of those Wilderness Areas that are closed to gold panning and metal detectors.

F- #3.

And I can give you at least 1 example of a National Wildlife Refuge that is totally closed to all public access. A hint, it’s located in the Democrat State of Massachusetts.

F- #4.

Del Dolemonte on January 3, 2016 at 6:48 PM

Maybe we should just be conservative and keep the land use to a minimum, so our future grandchildren will have parks they can visit.

Without Wifi or broadband access, any visit to a park with kids is a lesson in masochism. Most kids today couldn’t give a damn that moss only grows on the north side of a tree trunk. Hell, most kids don’t know what moss is or looks like.

BobMbx on January 3, 2016 at 6:50 PM

Without Wifi or broadband access, any visit to a park with kids is a lesson in masochism. Most kids today couldn’t give a damn that moss only grows on the north side of a tree trunk. Hell, most kids don’t know what moss is or looks like.

BobMbx on January 3, 2016 at 6:50 PM

They should turn around and look at their butts.

/

Lolo on January 3, 2016 at 7:10 PM

Hey… what happened to my comments and my logon? I can’t post anymore!

Walter L. Newton on January 3, 2016 at 7:27 PM

Let’s not pretend that BLM only marches for innocent people killed.

CWforFreedom on January 3, 2016 at 7:29 PM

I can’t post anymore!

Walter L. Newton on January 3, 2016 at 7:27 PM

Too bad.

CWforFreedom on January 3, 2016 at 7:30 PM

Hey… what happened to my comments and my logon? I can’t post anymore!

Walter L. Newton on January 3, 2016 at 7:27 PM

Jets lost and Jazz banned everyone.

smokeyblonde on January 3, 2016 at 7:32 PM

Okay, the Jets game is over. Everyone is banned.

Jazz Shaw on January 3, 2016 at 4:10 PM

From NFL thread …

smokeyblonde on January 3, 2016 at 7:32 PM

Walter. No big loss…..

Indiana Jim on January 3, 2016 at 7:49 PM

Rod. “I lost everything to the Fed. And i was partly to blame”???? Yeah sure. 100% partly probably.

Indiana Jim on January 3, 2016 at 8:04 PM

it keeps that land open for all to use, instead of becoming the private property of massive corporations?

everdiso on January 3, 2016 at 5:36 PM

really? Try getting into a national park and doing anything except exactly what the government allows. You have more freedom of action in a corporate back yard than you do on federal land.

JIMV on January 3, 2016 at 8:23 PM

Rod. “I lost everything to the Fed. And i was partly to blame”???? Yeah sure. 100% partly probably.

Indiana Jim on January 3, 2016 at 8:04 PM

Yes, I do take full responsibility. But it did start out with a mistake on the part of the IRS that I, through poor decisions and mismanagement, made much, much worse. And my family and employees suffered greatly for those mistakes.

So yep, as much as I like to rant about the IRS I’ll take blame here. And I hope that by that admission you feel even more smug and superior than you did when you were patting yourself on the back as you posted your comment – which I’m also sure you believed was a very witty and insightful post. I bet you were even chuckling to yourself weren’t you?

BTW, I haven’t read your previous posts regarding the folks in Oregon but I’m guessing you believe they are 100% responsible for their problems too? Or is it just me you applied your astute observations too?

Rod on January 3, 2016 at 8:43 PM

Testing

WryTrvllr on January 3, 2016 at 9:36 PM

Testing

WryTrvllr on January 3, 2016 at 9:36 PM

Jets lost. Jazz banned everyone. It’s now anarchy – Good Times! :)

smokeyblonde on January 3, 2016 at 9:47 PM

Jets lost. Jazz banned everyone. It’s now anarchy – Good Times! :)

smokeyblonde on January 3, 2016 at 9:47 PM

The Jets have always sucked.

WryTrvllr on January 3, 2016 at 9:48 PM

Maybe they should learn how to pump a football.

WryTrvllr on January 3, 2016 at 9:49 PM

it keeps that land open for all to use, instead of becoming the private property of massive corporations?
.
everdiso on January 3, 2016 at 5:36 PM

.
really? Try getting into a national park and doing anything except exactly what the government allows. You have more freedom of action in a corporate back yard than you do on federal land.

JIMV on January 3, 2016 at 8:23 PM

.
That’s not exactly the truth in this day and age, JIMV. But it used to be…

I can’t access one of my favorite ‘family heritage’ hunting areas, because it’s owned by the quarry my grand pap use to work for.
This large amount of GREAT, mountainside hunting acreage became POSTED, because someone was carelessly joy-riding an ATV on some other ground the same Company owned, a hundred miles away.
They ran off the edge of a cliff (the cliffs where my grand pap worked are a minimum of 100 ft and better) and were killed. The family sued, and won. Whole tracts of great hunting ground that people have been hunting on for many years, located sporadically around several states (mine is PA) have been posted because of this.

A better example is Railroads. We hunted and fished many places that require parking on one side of the tracks and crossing over the other side. But not any more.

Let me qualify all of this, by saying I am NOT defending the Federal government owning and CONTROLLING all of this ground that they do.

The only ground the United States Federal Government should own is what’s needed for military bases. All other real-estate/office-space they need, should be rented.

My take.

listens2glenn on January 3, 2016 at 10:01 PM

Let’s see how swiftly barack deals with this.

SouthernGent on January 3, 2016 at 10:22 PM

Alternative Headline:

Militant wackos seize .gov building. None dead.

WryTrvllr on January 3, 2016 at 10:57 PM

There is an easy, non-violent way to solve this Oregon problem: ignore it. These guys seized control of an out-of-the-way federal facility. It doesn’t appear that these guys have taken hostages or are threatening destruction of life or property. Why is an armed, violent response needed?

Just ignore them, move whatever staff was supposed to occupy that facility to another facility, and I bet that the occupiers are gone within 30 days. An armed response will only flame conflict as it will draw comparisons to Ferguson, Baltimore, etc. which will only create the impression that the law under O is enforced differently for white and/or non-libs. Gee, what will happen next?

Speakeasy on January 4, 2016 at 12:29 AM

Did I miss something? CD didn’t seem any more irrational than any other day …

The “shot on sight” thing is pretty much advocating violence, but he’s talking about law enforcement taking them out *I think* but I’ll consider it for a while. He’s in time out right now.

Jazz Shaw on January 3, 2016 at 1:58 PM

Haven’t we learned yet that timeouts don’t work? Not even on toddlers.

There Goes the Neighborhood on January 4, 2016 at 2:51 AM

If you open up all the land to private interests, what’s to prevent entities worse than the federal government from owning it? Guys, I hate to say it but conservatives have been wrong before on some huge issues, so don’t assume you’re right on this one. Foreign nationals could buy up millions of acres. Other special interests will buy up gigantic tracts. Maybe we should just be conservative and keep the land use to a minimum, so our future grandchildren will have parks they can visit. The land can always be developed 100 years from now.

cimbri on January 3, 2016 at 6:36 PM

That argument implies that it’s better for the land if the government owns it rather than private citizens. You should really reconsider.

It’s actually easy to show that the government has frequently completely mis-managed the land they have. For years, the government’s obsession with preventing fires prevented controlled-burns, which are a normal part of nature, and created conditions conducive to massive fires.

The government does not manage land wisely or well. Private citizens do it much better.

That said, would it make any difference if the government managed it better than private citizens? Aren’t you basically advocating for the government to own extensive lands and take them out of private hands?

The federal government owns something like 50% of California land and about 80% of Nevada, IIRC. Also, most of the natural resources of Alaska. Look up the statistics for how much land the government owns in each state, and you’ll quickly see a pattern. As the government grew in power, it commandeered more and more of each new state’s natural resources. The government doesn’t own that much land in the West because the states wanted them to manage it. It owns that much land because, at the time the state joined the union, the federal government was powerful enough to take that land as a condition of joining.

Conservatives can certainly be wrong about some things, but this is certainly not one of them.

There Goes the Neighborhood on January 4, 2016 at 3:38 AM

Rod. “I lost everything to the Fed. And i was partly to blame”???? Yeah sure. 100% partly probably.

Indiana Jim on January 3, 2016 at 8:04 PM

Some people have to invent stories to show despite how many times you get kicked in the teeth, it is our duty to love bloated tyrannical government

Brock Robamney on January 4, 2016 at 5:57 AM

Rod. *Yaaaaaaaaaaaawn*

Indiana Jim on January 4, 2016 at 6:57 AM

you guys realize that the protestors who vandalized baltimore and ferguson are all facing charges, and some have already been convictes, right? [sic ad infinitum]

everdiso on January 3, 2016 at 5:35 PM

The vandals you cite were not responding to the final outcome of a legal proceeding, and purposed to cause the destruction and theft of private property of those not involved with the events they ‘claim’ to have been reacting to. Whether one agrees or not with the ‘occupiers’ of said federal building above, they at least waited until the wheels of justice reached a conclusion, and proceeded without the destructive natures of those involved in Baltimore and Ferguson, aiming their ire at the appropriate governing offender, Jefferson-style.

Huge difference.

Ricard on January 4, 2016 at 9:21 AM

Jazz Shaw, I’m so disappointed in your lack of desire to do research. The real story here is the Hammonds. The miltia is a distraction. These are good people who have been harassed by the govnerment for years because it wants their private ground. The fires they set were back burns designed to stop a wildfire. It is a normal practice. http://holdingblock.blogspot.com/2015/12/fact-event-hammond-family.html?view=classic&m=1

ORTX on January 4, 2016 at 10:02 AM

Rod. *Yaaaaaaaaaaaawn*

Indiana Jim on January 4, 2016 at 6:57 AM

I was kinda hoping you’d answer my question but, we’ll … looks that I was expecting too much. Have a great day Mr. Indiana Jim. You’re a real fount of wisdom.

Rod on January 4, 2016 at 10:09 AM

you guys realize that the protestors who vandalized baltimore and ferguson are all facing charges, and some have already been convictes, right?

everdiso on January 3, 2016 at 5:35 PM

The municipal court judge in Ferguson, Missouri, on Monday announced sweeping changes to the city’s court system, including an order to withdraw all arrest warrants issued in that city before December 31, 2014.

So I guess when you say “all” the vandals, you really just mean those vandals that actually were indicted before their warrants were vacated, right?

The Schaef on January 4, 2016 at 10:18 AM

right-wing blogosphere Says the kid deserves to get shot.

CivilDiscourse on January 3, 2016 at 12:39 PM

It will come too late for you to see this, but I’m kind of disappointed that you’re going down this road after we had a discussion – in that very article – about going off the rails with these blanket accusations.

The Schaef on January 4, 2016 at 10:20 AM

They aren’t just magic talismans that people like me throw down to auto-win arguments…

Tlaloc on January 3, 2016 at 1:17 PM

No, typically you “auto-win” an argument by making some absurd and unsubstantiated claim or accusation and then abandon the thread when you’re called out on your bad facts.

Which makes it all the more ironic when people like you and libfree start concern-trolling about people being “lied to” about “reality”.

The Schaef on January 4, 2016 at 10:23 AM

it keeps that land open for all to use, instead of becoming the private property of massive corporations?

everdiso on January 3, 2016 at 5:36 PM

It’s un-Constitutional, unless that land is being used for interstate highways, ports, military bases/armories, part of DC or other needful administrative BUILDINGS. Period. Go read the Constitution yourself. Allowed Federal land use is scattered among various clauses under Article I Section 8.

dominigan on January 4, 2016 at 10:46 AM

Schaef
I think you’re a reasonable, upstanding commenter. Unfortunately, my opinion of you does not negate the many sentiments/articles that I’ve read justifying the police action, ranging from simple LEO apologetics to full-on glee that the “young thug” was taken out sooner than later. I don’t believe that ALL conservatives think this way, but every single one I’ve read who does identifies as conservative—and there’s certainly enough who do to justify the statement, I believe. The evidence is all over articles in this and other right-wing blogs, and it’s strewn throughout comment sections. Sorry for your disappointment, but your reasonableness doesn’t cancel out a whole lotta crazy. I’m not trying to paint everyone with one brush (and I would hope for you not to take it personally) but rather express what I see as the prevailing opinion.

CivilDiscourse on January 4, 2016 at 11:01 AM

I have mixed feelings about what’s going on out West. You have very wealthy landowners like Ted Turner, who owns over a million acres. You got ranchers complaining about wolves being re-introduced to Yellowstone, even though they were there first and deserve some piece of habitat. You have ranchers who have been using public land to enrich themselves.
cimbri on January 3, 2016 at 6:36 PM

Wolves probably used to live close to your house. How about reintroduce them there? They deserve a piece of your habitat.

cptacek on January 4, 2016 at 12:56 PM

No, typically you “auto-win” an argument by making some absurd and unsubstantiated claim or accusation and then abandon the thread when you’re called out on your bad facts.

Which makes it all the more ironic when people like you and libfree start concern-trolling about people being “lied to” about “reality”.

The Schaef on January 4, 2016 at 10:23 AM

“auto-win” means only the voices in his head mean anything.

itsspideyman on January 4, 2016 at 1:17 PM

Schaef
I think you’re a reasonable, upstanding commenter. Unfortunately, my opinion of you does not negate the many sentiments/articles that I’ve read justifying the police action, ranging from simple LEO apologetics to full-on glee that the “young thug” was taken out sooner than later. I don’t believe that ALL conservatives think this way, but every single one I’ve read who does identifies as conservative—and there’s certainly enough who do to justify the statement, I believe. The evidence is all over articles in this and other right-wing blogs, and it’s strewn throughout comment sections. Sorry for your disappointment, but your reasonableness doesn’t cancel out a whole lotta crazy. I’m not trying to paint everyone with one brush (and I would hope for you not to take it personally) but rather express what I see as the prevailing opinion.

CivilDiscourse on January 4, 2016 at 11:01 AM

And lefties aren’t calling for the militia members to be killed?

You’re really going to start insisting that comments on the internet are now fair game? Because this doesn’t bode well for lefties like you.

gwelf on January 4, 2016 at 1:35 PM

These people are constantly lied to about the world around them, and when its proven they’re ignorant they…just keep truckin.

libfreeordie on January 3, 2016 at 12:55 PM

Hands UP! Don’t Shoot!!

HumpBot Salvation on January 3, 2016 at 2:32 PM

I’m sure the progressive utopia promised to the government faithful is just right around the corner.

gwelf on January 4, 2016 at 1:54 PM

Schaef
I think you’re a reasonable, upstanding commenter. Unfortunately, my opinion of you does not negate the many sentiments/articles that I’ve read justifying the police action, ranging from simple LEO apologetics to full-on glee that the “young thug” was taken out sooner than later. I don’t believe that ALL conservatives think this way, but every single one I’ve read who does identifies as conservative—and there’s certainly enough who do to justify the statement, I believe. The evidence is all over articles in this and other right-wing blogs, and it’s strewn throughout comment sections. Sorry for your disappointment, but your reasonableness doesn’t cancel out a whole lotta crazy. I’m not trying to paint everyone with one brush (and I would hope for you not to take it personally) but rather express what I see as the prevailing opinion.

CivilDiscourse on January 4, 2016 at 11:01 AM

Yet you were the one screaming in comments that conservatives owned Beard – the CO Springs shooter – and that “inflammatory rhetoric” was responsible for the shooting.

You love to throw bombs (and lie), then retreat to your “hey, I’m just trying to have a reasonable and civil discussion here”. We’re wise to your schtick at this point.

gwelf on January 4, 2016 at 1:58 PM

Schaef
I think you’re a reasonable, upstanding commenter. Unfortunately, my opinion of you does not negate the many sentiments/articles that I’ve read justifying the police action, ranging from simple LEO apologetics to full-on glee that the “young thug” was taken out sooner than later.

CivilDiscourse on January 4, 2016 at 11:01 AM

Well, I already showed – factually – that the response to this is heavily mixed, and in my unscientific guesstimate tilts pretty strongly in favor of faulting the cops at least in part.

So no, it doesn’t negate whatever justification of police action you’ve read. It only negates your claim that this site is awash with them.

The Schaef on January 4, 2016 at 2:47 PM

Yet you were the one screaming in comments that conservatives owned Beard – the CO Springs shooter – and that “inflammatory rhetoric” was responsible for the shooting.

You love to throw bombs (and lie), then retreat to your “hey, I’m just trying to have a reasonable and civil discussion here”. We’re wise to your schtick at this point.

gwelf on January 4, 2016 at 1:58 PM

You say screaming, I say pointing out that when he interjected “no more body parts,” he was referencing fake propaganda videos specifically given a national spotlight by Fiorina in a televised Republican debate. You say lies, I say connecting the (rather obvious) dots. It’s a difference of perspective. Don’t fool yourself by pretending its a lie.

CivilDiscourse on January 4, 2016 at 4:45 PM

It only negates your claim that this site is awash with them.

The Schaef on January 4, 2016 at 2:47 PM

Shaef, again, much respect, but I’m not going to argue whether there are many, many conservative thinkers, writers, and commenters (including here at HA) who express justification of the cops’ actions at the expense of sympathy/empathy for Rice. Or, for that matter, take what you may think as unreasonable or extreme positions on a great many things—positions that you yourself may not take. It’s just not worth arguing about, because it’s so patently self-evident to me by just even the most cursory reading. You and other individual commenters may take the moderate, more reasonable path, but I rather tend to think of you as islands in a sea of crazy.

CivilDiscourse on January 4, 2016 at 4:53 PM

islands in a sea of crazy.

CivilDiscourse on January 4, 2016 at 4:53 PM

That was harsh—peninsulas in a bay? Boulders in a river? :)

CivilDiscourse on January 4, 2016 at 4:55 PM

Shaef, again, much respect, but I’m not going to argue whether there are many, many conservative thinkers, writers, and commenters (including here at HA) who express justification of the cops’ actions at the expense of sympathy/empathy for Rice.

CivilDiscourse on January 4, 2016 at 4:53 PM

Probably because I found dozens contrary examples in one page of one thread, suggesting that your chracterization of “seas” and “islands” leaves much to be desired.

The Schaef on January 4, 2016 at 5:59 PM

You say lies, I say connecting the (rather obvious) dots.

CivilDiscourse on January 4, 2016 at 4:45 PM

In short, extrapolating beyond what is known, to reach a conclusion that fits preconceived notions.

Kind of like how the “many many” commenters tend to blot out in your mind the “many many” contrarian views on the matter, and like the unfairly narrow assessment of the “range of reactions”.

The Schaef on January 5, 2016 at 10:42 AM