Become a part of one of the fastest growing adult communities online. We have something for you, whether you’re a male member seeking out new friends or a new lady on the scene looking to take advantage of our many opportunities to network, make new friends, or connect with people. Join today & take part in lively discussions, take advantage of all the great features that attract hundreds of new daily members!
Oh yea they are white welfare ranchers. They are claiming they will stay in the building for "years" and launch armed attacks against the government. If they were black or Muslim there would have been lots of post by now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by i'va biggen
The Hammonds are complying with the law, even though the punishment for the crime is harsh. The Bundys are just armed thugs who want their 15 minuets .
Quote:
Originally Posted by cptjohnstone
let's see, yesterday Eva was coping what the original poster said
Only you could make that statement.
today he is telling everyone they cannot read, Eva telling people they cannot read, imagine that
Everyone? Tend to exaggerate don't you hillbilly?
I wonder what it will be tomorrow?
You will make another dumb ass statement?
save your reply Eva, I know I am dumb and a hillbilly
Acronym for Nice Cock Man! Commonly used as a friendly praise or term of endearment. Believed to have been started by Baracca after smoking {forbidden subject} with Lippy Slidell, Walter P, and Donnie Manos out behind the rib shack. Words may also be substituted in place of "cock" for universality.
i'm rather sure you didn't really mean this definition did ya? idiot. if so ..
According to the FBI definition;
Anyone who uses violence, or the threat of violence, against CIVILIAN targets of a country in order to secure political change is guilty of terrorism. What? No link?
Of course not. Tell them j-douche
Not reason to wait on her for a link. Because there is no such link.
I, of course, included a link below to the FBI.
I see no threat of violence against civilian or otherwise. Of course not. I see people who say that they will resist but have not said how they will resist. When armed people resist, law enforcement should rightly assume any resistance will be armed resistance. Why the fuck do you think they're armed. To hunt game when the dumb shits forget to bring food? Pull your head out of your ass
So this entire thread is now based on a lie and that may be why there have so few posts. Wrong. This entire post is based on a lie.
I wonder if Louise has ever heard the phrase "double jeopardy"? These two ranchers were previously sentenced for their "crimes" and served their time. Now a new judge decided that they should be in prison longer. That is the real outrage. That someone can go through the system and some third party who calls themselves a judge can decided unilaterally that time served is not enough. I think we should focus on this corrupt judge and find out who they are.
Speaking of being based on a lie. Here is the definition that the FBI has posted on it's website
Domestic terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:
Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping; and
Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S
That's right. J-douche lied. Again.
Multiple opportunities to display his ignorance.
Doesn't double jeopardy refer to being tried twice for the same crime? Were they tried twice? I don't think so.
So I suppose my credibility just took another shot. How can I get mine to the level of yours? Only by lying my ass off.
[Full Story on What’s Going on In Oregon – Militia Take Over Malheur National Wildlife Refuge In Protest to Hammond Family Persecution…="5"][/SIZE]
There's always 2 sides to every story.
hose who know 73-year-old Dwight Hammond Jr. and his son, Steven, will tell you that the hot-tempered ranchers can sometimes be their own worst enemies.
But when the men were sentenced to additional prison time for setting two fires that spread to federal lands, many in this remote and rugged corner of eastern Oregon saw it as the federal government wielding too much power.
The ranchers have now become the unwitting inspiration for a self-proclaimed militia that has seized parts of a national wildlife refuge near here, declaring they will stand there until citizens like the Hammonds can manage their own land and die outside of prison.
It's an honor that sits uneasily with the Hammond family and a number of their neighbors, who have sought to distance themselves from the armed takeover. Signs have gone up around town: "Bundy militia go home" and "No Bundy caliphate," references to Ryan and Ammon Bundy, the brothers from Utah and Idaho who appear to be leading the band of protesters at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.
See more of our top stories on Facebook >>
As ordered by a federal judge, the Hammonds pulled up to the Terminal Island federal correctional facility in San Pedro on Monday in a sport utility vehicle and were escorted inside to complete their five-year sentences for arson. Karyn Gallen, a niece of Dwight Hammond who was on hand for the surrender, said the family appreciated the showing of support in Oregon. On the other hand, she said, "it has always been a request of the family that things be peaceful." See the most-read stories this hour >>Read the story
Friends and supporters of the Hammonds, who hail from a long line of Oregon ranchers, argue that their attempts to buck federal authorities are the product of a deep commitment to the community in which they live and the land that sustains it.
The Hammonds say they set the two fires in 2001 and 2006 to ward off invasive plant species and protect their property from a wildfire.
Federal prosecutors agreed that Steven Hammond, 46, started the 2006 fire as a defensive measure to prevent a blaze caused by a lightning storm from destroying the winter feed for the family's cattle. But they argued that his actions violated a burn ban that had been in effect and endangered firefighters who were battling the wildfire.
Steven Hammond insisted he called an emergency dispatcher before setting the 2001 fire to make sure there was no burn ban in effect that day. But prosecutors said the call wasn't made until two hours after the fire was set. They contended this fire, which spread to nearly 140 acres of government land, was set to cover up evidence of an illegal deer hunt.
It was not the first time that the Hammonds tangled with federal authorities about setting fires too close to public land. The original indictment listed several other alleged incidents dating to 1982, and said in some cases the Hammonds had obstructed efforts to fight the fires.
After a two-week trial in 2012, the two men served their time — three months for Dwight and a year for Steven — and family members said they assumed that would be the end of the matter.
Instead, the government appealed the sentences, arguing that they did not meet the legally required minimum of five years. U.S. District Judge Michael Hogan had ruled at their original sentencing that such a term would constitute cruel and unusual punishment and was therefore unconstitutional.
"It would be a sentence which would shock the conscience," Hogan said.
But a federal appeals court agreed with the government and the men were resentenced to five years. Their last hope is an appeal for clemency from President Obama.
Gallen said the circumstances now facing her family were "unfathomable."
"We are talking about 140 acres with no lives lost," she said.
Because of the criminal convictions, the Bureau of Land Management did not renew the family's grazing permits last year, and family members say it will be difficult to keep the ranch going.
What has also riled friends and supporters is that the ranchers were prosecuted under a 1996 law intended to punish domestic terrorists.
Sam Glerup, who owns a tow-truck business in Burns, acknowledged that the Hammonds are "no golden boys," but said "they're no terrorists," either.
"The older one [Dwight], he'll be dead before he ever sees the outside of a prison," Glerup said.
In an open letter to the citizens of Harney County, Acting U.S. Attorney Billy J. Williams said federal prosecutors never accused the Hammonds of being terrorists.
"The evidence at trial convinced the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the Hammonds were guilty of the federal crime of arson, that is, maliciously damaging United States property by fire," he said. "The jury was neither asked if the Hammonds were terrorists, nor were defendants ever charged with or accused of terrorism. Suggesting otherwise is simply flat-out wrong."
Anti-government activists rolled into town over the weekend to show support for the aging rancher and his son.
"We're trying to accomplish the task of restoring rights to the people who have lost them or surrendered them," Ryan Bundy told The Times on Monday.
Environmentalists, however, argue that what the protesters consider tyrannical treatment by the government is in fact a generous welfare program.
"There is enormous subsidization of public lands livestock grazing," the Western Watersheds Project said in a statement Monday. "While the going rate for grazing a cow and a calf on private land for a month in Oregon is $17, the equivalent fee on federal public lands is only $1.69 ... hardly a sign that the federal agencies are trying to put ranchers out of business."
The Malheur wildlife refuge, one of the country's premier bird sanctuaries, is actually open to livestock grazing, according to the group.
"Thousands of Americans visit the refuge each year to enjoy the unique species that frequent the Pacific flyway, pouring over $1.9 million into the local economy annually," it said. "When Ammon Bundy promotes his agenda of using the resource, he's overlooking the many Americans who 'use the resource' to enjoy quiet recreation like bird-watching."
Speaking of being based on a lie. Here is the definition that the FBI has posted on it's website
Domestic terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:
Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping; and
Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S
That's right. J-douche lied. Again.
Multiple opportunities to display his ignorance.
Doesn't double jeopardy refer to being tried twice for the same crime? Were they tried twice? I don't think so.
So I suppose my credibility just took another shot. How can I get mine to the level of yours? Only by lying my ass off.
I didn't say one word about domestic terrorism. I was talking about terrorism in general. Sorry I spoke over your limited skills. How about this little link;
"The question of what qualifies as terrorism is hotly contested, but the most compelling definitions hinge on whether the perpetrators target civilians. The political philosopher Tony Coady, for example, says that terrorism involves “intentionally targeting noncombatants with lethal or severe violence for political purposes,” while Peter Simpson, another academic, refers to “acts of indiscriminate violence directed at civilians or nonhostile personnel.”"
I could (but I won't) take the time to drag out my textbook from my class on terrorism and give you the word for word definition (circa 2007).
Does your nutsack hurt? That's my foot on it.
From the actual code:
(A)involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended—(i)to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii)to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii)to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
First off, your attempt at obscuring the fact that you don't see this as a terrorist act won't cut it. No video to blame. No nothing. You don't see a group of armed men unlawfully seizing and occupying a government building as being a violent act or an attempt at intimidation
Quote:
Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn
I didn't say one word about domestic terrorism. I was talking about terrorism in general. All 3 stipulations must exist for an act of terrorism to occur. You said you saw no threat of violence.which means they aren't committing an act of terrorism according to you. I spoke of domestic terrorism because that's specifically what they are doing. Let's check that.
Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;. Check
Appear intended (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; Check
Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S. Check
So okay. We have an act of domestic terrorism where you saw no terrorism at all.
Sorry I spoke over your limited skills. Yes you're sorry and no, you didn't talk over me. How about this little link;
"The question of what qualifies as terrorism is hotly contested, but the most compelling definitions hinge on whether the perpetrators target civilians. The political philosopher Tony Coady, for example, says that terrorism involves “intentionally targeting noncombatants with lethal or severe violence for political purposes,” while Peter Simpson, another academic, refers to “acts of indiscriminate violence directed at civilians or nonhostile personnel.”"
I could (but I won't) take the time to drag out my textbook from my class on terrorism and give you the word for word definition (circa 2007).Who cares what a 9 year old book says? Who cares what a liberal/conservative author at a liberal/conservative paper in an op-ed piece says?
The FBI currently says:
"Domestic terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:
Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping; and
Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.
Does your nutsack hurt? That's my foot on it. That's a nutsack alright but it isn't mine.
From the actual code:
(A)involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended—(i)to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii)to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii)to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
What I wrote dumbfuck...
No dumbfuck. Here is exactly what you wrote
According to the FBI definition;
Anyone who uses violence, or the threat of violence, against CIVILIAN targets of a country in order to secure political change is guilty of terrorism.
Lying by omission. One of your favorite tricks.
Using the definition above your skillset can use you can stay in denial that you aren't a moron.
Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping;
Using the definition posted on the FBI website people 14 and above see the key information you left out.
I see no threat of violence against civilian or otherwise. I see people who say that they will resist but have not said how they will resist.
You see nothing but sand.
So this entire thread is now based on a lie and that may be why there have so few posts.
I wonder if Louise has ever heard the phrase "double jeopardy"? These two ranchers were previously sentenced for their "crimes" and served their time. Now a new judge decided that they should be in prison longer. That is the real outrage. That someone can go through the system and some third party who calls themselves a judge can decided unilaterally that time served is not enough. I think we should focus on this corrupt judge and find out who they are.
