150 armed Militia occupy federal property in Oregon.

[Borgholio]

Cliven Bundy and 5 others including his son were just indicted by a grand jury on 16 felony counts each. As icing on the cake, Cliven was denied bail as he was determined to be a flight risk. I can't help but giggle at this.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/16/us/cliven ... ng-oregon/

[Broomstick]

No, I didn't "get butthurt" because you brought up a difference (one that I think is only a difference because they can't get away with it, but they can use their women as human shields).

Provide some supporting evidence that the Bubbas want to enslave women and rape them. I really doubt their women are helpless little human shields because I saw no evidence of said women being held against their will. Indeed, it seems the women all left and took the kids with them, so just how much shielding was going on there?

I never made the claim beyond the fact that they all believe in a Bronze Age book full of horseshit that encourages the enslavement and rape of women. So it kind of follows that if they get their libertarian theocratic wonderland, that would happen. It's called a logical extrapolation.

Except that there are plenty of theocratic societies that DON'T do that these days. ISIS is an aberration. The closest to what you described among Christian whackos are the FLDS and even they do not openly buy and sell women at auction nor set up whorehouses. Even among other Muslim theocracies ISIS is seen as extreme. I think both ISIS and FLDS are evil, but one is considerably more so than the other. (My information is also that Bundy is mainstream Mormon, not FLDS)

Also, strictly speaking, while the Bible is Bronze Age bullshit the Koran is Iron Age bullshit and Mormonism is Steam Age bullshit.

And the previous standoff had the leaders bragging about how the women and children would be put in front of the treason season fuckwits firing line so that if a firefight broke out the news crews would be filming the women and children getting mowed down.

We were talking about THIS standoff, not the prior one. I don't recall hearing about putting women and children in a line between the two groups this time. Perhaps you can give a cite for the intentions of this group being the same in that regard? Or is that just an assumption you made?

This standoff seems to have been mostly softies. The Bundy Brothers might have had the balls, I doubt the others did.

And I know this may come as a shock to you, but a large portion of women believe, because of the previously mentioned Bronze Age horseshit, that their place is to do what the menfolk tell them to do.

I know this may come as a shock to you, but there are women who run away from places like that. Also, I don't assume that every Bible-thumper woman is a helpless waif with no brains - some of them are ball-busters who believe in their bullshit just as much as the men.

But that aside - the Bundys and their Bubba Buddies seem more politically motivated than religiously so, they're Sovereign Citizens and that's what they base their justifications on, not on being Mormons. They're not doing these standoffs because Angel Moroni told them to do so, they're doing it out of political beliefs that the Federal government has no legitimacy or authority over them. That doesn't come out of being Mormons.

[Broomstick]

Cliven Bundy and 5 others including his son were just indicted by a grand jury on 16 felony counts each.

Looks like Mr. Bundy is discovering that the US Federal government does have authority over him, and the ability to enforce it.

Waiting patiently to nab these guys instead of going in guns blazing strikes me as more civilized, which is a pleasant surprise out of any government.

[Joun_Lord]

Cliven Bundy and 5 others including his son were just indicted by a grand jury on 16 felony counts each. As icing on the cake, Cliven was denied bail as he was determined to be a flight risk. I can't help but giggle at this.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/16/us/cliven ... ng-oregon/

Oh fuck yeah. That was what I was so goddamn worried about was some idiot would give that fuck bail. I know Bundy when released would either go full on siege mode again and we'd have to wait another 20 fucking years to nab is worthless ass or just do something stupid so he doesn't have to go back to jail because all the cons want to Occupy his ass. I usually find prison rape jokes tasteless and a bit sexist but for once I'll make an exception which I guess speaks to the level of loathing I hold for this piece of human excrement.

Bundy should not be released until he's served his time and paid his fines and even then he should be heavily fucking monitored, his ranch auctioned to pay for his fines and the damages he caused, and not even allowed to look at a firearm without going back to prison.

Now the angsty teenage MURICA STRONG internet tough guy part of me wants the bastard hung for being a traitor and a seditionist and a bastard but luckily I don't listen to that doucheass much anymore.

No I'd be happy with him spending the next 20 years in prison. Thats probably a far worse punishment anyway. Not dying as a martyr or leading the great American revolution. Not badly running his beloved ranch out in the great outdoors. Not with his family. Everything he loves taken away and replaced by a shitty little cell, his dreams of revolution shattered like the testicles of a man doing a split off a high rise, his farm that has been in family for generations (atleast in his mind) taken away and probably sold to some liberal yuppie who wants to grow weed there once it becomes legal.

Probably worst of all, he will be forgotten. Bundy was an attention whore, a man that loved the cameras, loved the press. Thought he was famous, thought he would be remembered as a patriot. But nope, just Chuck Testa. He will not be remembered fondly if at all, get no attention beyond some probable high school drop out who took a night course to become a prison guard telling him to go to sleep and to get up and to go walk the yard like a good little puppy. The average person in 10 years will have no idea who he is. His only claim to fame will be some forgotten wikipedia page that no one will go to except by accident when searching for Al Bundy.

And that makes me so goddamn happy.

[Flagg]

<stupid hair splitting with zero relevance snipped>

Since it's the same basic group who share the same ideology, my point about human shields stands. Since all Abrahamite religions are based on a solid foundation of Bronze Age bullshittery, my point stands.

[Broomstick]

As proof that the women involved were not hapless victims but were full on participants in the bullshit, Here is a link to a PDF of a legal document generated by one Shawna Cox. It's kind of a hilarious read, especially the part at the end where she claims the State and Federal Bar Associations are foreign agents and she asks for $666,666,666,666.66 in damages from works of the devil.

[Borgholio]

Cliven Bundy and 5 others including his son were just indicted by a grand jury on 16 felony counts each.

Looks like Mr. Bundy is discovering that the US Federal government does have authority over him, and the ability to enforce it.

Waiting patiently to nab these guys instead of going in guns blazing strikes me as more civilized, which is a pleasant surprise out of any government.

As I've maintained for awhile, just because you choose not to recognize the authority of a government doesn't mean they aren't legitimate and have power over you. If a cop pulls you over for speeding and you tell him to fuck off just because you don't recognize his authority...yeah see how well that goes for you.

[NecronLord]

<stupid hair splitting with zero relevance snipped>

Since it's the same basic group who share the same ideology, my point about human shields stands. Since all Abrahamite religions are based on a solid foundation of Bronze Age bullshittery, my point stands.

I consider this a violation of DR4 & DR5.

DR4. Do not ignore arguments put to you.
DR5. Back up your claim that the chief/sole intent of the rancher-occupier males in 'permitting' women and children to join them was to use them a slaves.

Failure to comply may result in a formal warning.

[Ziggy Stardust]

However they weren't, as far as we know, just going around deliberately smashing stuff to look tough like ISIS making comparisons beyond to make fun of the fucks less then apt. But they still did damage shit, just through disregard rather then purpose.

Which was ... exactly my point? As I said in my post, the artifacts are definitely of concern, but the fact is that there is a massive difference between deliberate destruction and accidental damage through stupidity/negligence. The former is worthy of far more direct and intensive action than the latter.

They equate to the vile personal shit I've pointed out, how?

It wasn't "vile personal shit", it was you getting offended. Broomstick made it pretty clear she has no idea what the hell your personal history is. I don't either, and neither of us care, because it's irrelevant. Broomstick's comment was pretty run of the mill for this site.

And now that Joun has effectively refuted your content-less, source-less, and overall nonsense-laden vendetta post, can the people who are actually wanting to discuss the asshat Traitor Bundy Bunch continue?

You mean my "content-less, source-less" post that actually had a link to a news story supporting my argument? Is that the post you are talking about, you illiterate buffoon? Never even mind that Joun's post SUPPORTED my argument, not refuted it. But, oh yes, anyone that dares insult you MUST have a vendetta . Again, quite a delicate little snowflake we have, here. And, once again, the rich, hypocritical irony of you whining that we all get back to the point when you started the damned tangent to begin with. There aren't enough eye-roll emoticons in the world for your silly behavior in this thread.

[Flagg]

<stupid hair splitting with zero relevance snipped>

Since it's the same basic group who share the same ideology, my point about human shields stands. Since all Abrahamite religions are based on a solid foundation of Bronze Age bullshittery, my point stands.

I consider this a violation of DR4 & DR5.

DR4. Do not ignore arguments put to you.
DR5. Back up your claim that the chief/sole intent of the rancher-occupier males in 'permitting' women and children to join them was to use them a slaves.

Failure to comply may result in a formal warning.

I never once claimed they had any intent to use them as slaves. I said that since they were effectively the same group that made numerous statements about their intent to use women and children as human shields so the media would film said women and children being slaughtered in a potential shootout that was avoided, both during and after the previous standoff, I assumed they would not change tactics during the latest one. I'll concede that there is no evidence they had the intention of doing so in this instance since there isn't any real evidence that they did.

As far as the difference between Mormonism, which largely uses the OT of the King James Bible, the rest of Christianity, which uses the same or similar OT books, and Islam which uses a rewritten form of the OT, what argument besides hair splitting was put forth? Are you demanding that I address the "argument" that because Christianity and Islam were founded in the Iron Age and Mormonism was founded in the Industrial Age that the most odious part of their respective Bibles (that being the Old Testament which encourages slavery of all kinds, including the sexual form, genocide, murder, and all manner of other hideous things) isn't, as I put it, "Bronze Age Bullshit" despite it all originating in the Bronze Age? How am I to do such a thing without lying, exactly?

[Flagg]

However they weren't, as far as we know, just going around deliberately smashing stuff to look tough like ISIS making comparisons beyond to make fun of the fucks less then apt. But they still did damage shit, just through disregard rather then purpose.

Which was ... exactly my point? As I said in my post, the artifacts are definitely of concern, but the fact is that there is a massive difference between deliberate destruction and accidental damage through stupidity/negligence. The former is worthy of far more direct and intensive action than the latter.

They equate to the vile personal shit I've pointed out, how?

It wasn't "vile personal shit", it was you getting offended. Broomstick made it pretty clear she has no idea what the hell your personal history is. I don't either, and neither of us care, because it's irrelevant. Broomstick's comment was pretty run of the mill for this site.

And now that Joun has effectively refuted your content-less, source-less, and overall nonsense-laden vendetta post, can the people who are actually wanting to discuss the asshat Traitor Bundy Bunch continue?

You mean my "content-less, source-less" post that actually had a link to a news story supporting my argument? Is that the post you are talking about, you illiterate buffoon? Never even mind that Joun's post SUPPORTED my argument, not refuted it. But, oh yes, anyone that dares insult you MUST have a vendetta . Again, quite a delicate little snowflake we have, here. And, once again, the rich, hypocritical irony of you whining that we all get back to the point when you started the damned tangent to begin with. There aren't enough eye-roll emoticons in the world for your silly behavior in this thread.

I disagree that I started any tangent, but I was mistaken in saying Joun had linked to a source. My bad, and I happily concede.

But your propensity to jump in and dogpile in threads I'm in and now using the term "delicate little snowflake", apparently because I objected to Broomstick making a hideously offensive statement all but outright saying that I support women being used as sex slaves, her use of downright offensive but hilariously ironic and hypocritical misogynistic and homophobic language in a failed attempt to emasculate me, with you adding to the dogpile reeks of vendetta to me.

And given Broomsticks dishonesty in this and past threads, her participation on another board where that part of my personal life was no secret, and the outright offensiveness of saying I supported sex slavery when there is no possible way that could be construed by anything I said, nothing will convince me that that wasn't personal based on my personal history. And even if not, it was an outright lie.

[NecronLord]

Are you demanding that I address the "argument" that because Christianity and Islam were founded in the Iron Age and Mormonism was founded in the Industrial Age that the most odious part of their respective Bibles (that being the Old Testament which encourages slavery of all kinds, including the sexual form, genocide, murder, and all manner of other hideous things) isn't, as I put it, "Bronze Age Bullshit" despite it all originating in the Bronze Age? How am I to do such a thing without lying, exactly?

I am not, that is clearly a facetious remark on her part and not intended to be a serious rebuttal.

I disagree that I started any tangent, but I was mistaken in saying Joun had linked to a source. My bad, and I happily concede.

But your propensity to jump in and dogpile in threads I'm in and now using the term "delicate little snowflake", apparently because I objected to Broomstick making a hideously offensive statement all but outright saying that I support women being used as sex slaves, her use of downright offensive but hilariously ironic and hypocritical misogynistic and homophobic language in a failed attempt to emasculate me, with you adding to the dogpile reeks of vendetta to me.

And given Broomsticks dishonesty in this and past threads, her participation on another board where that part of my personal life was no secret, and the outright offensiveness of saying I supported sex slavery when there is no possible way that could be construed by anything I said, nothing will convince me that that wasn't personal based on my personal history. And even if not, it was an outright lie.

I would be very interested to have this underlined section explained to me, either here or in PM; I've re-read her posts, but don't see it myself.

I for one do recall your recent discussion of your personal history, and will act against anyone I believe to be victimizing you over this or any other personal issue as per AR5, or anyone I see pursuing vendettas between threads as per DR2, and I may be approached via the report button or PM at any time.

[Broomstick]

And given Broomsticks dishonesty in this and past threads, her participation on another board where that part of my personal life was no secret, and the outright offensiveness of saying I supported sex slavery when there is no possible way that could be construed by anything I said, nothing will convince me that that wasn't personal based on my personal history. And even if not, it was an outright lie.

Er... what other message board do we have in common? And if you're using a different name on that board I'm unaware of any connection between the two forms of "you".

To clarify: I said a difference between ISIS and The Bubbas was that the former engaged in sex slavery and systematic rape and the latter did not. You seemed to sail past that distinction, which I thought was a bit odd for anyone. Are you saying that you think that, given free rein, The Bubbas would do the same? Because that's a pretty extreme position for any theocracy these days. I don't see a support for that argument but if you have one by all means present it. However "because Christian" wouldn't be sufficient since frank sexual slavery, that is, the open selling of women for sexual purposes, is not an automatic feature of Christian-based theocracies.

[Rogue 9]

Ooookay.

In other news, here's the memorandum supporting pretrial detention for Cliven Bundy filed by federal prosecutors. It's way too long to quote, but it's a fascinating read, especially the parts going into detail about his "ranching" practices (if you can call them that), and intimidation tactics used by his goons against BLM contractors sent to Gold Butte for reasons unrelated to his cattle after the 2014 standoff.

[Civil War Man]

Ooookay.

In other news, here's the memorandum supporting pretrial detention for Cliven Bundy filed by federal prosecutors. It's way too long to quote, but it's a fascinating read, especially the parts going into detail about his "ranching" practices (if you can call them that), and intimidation tactics used by his goons against BLM contractors sent to Gold Butte for reasons unrelated to his cattle after the 2014 standoff.

I found the description of how he ran his so-called ranch particularly fascinating. Based on that, he's not a rancher as far as I'm concerned. He makes his living hunting feral cattle.

Honestly, the best argument in favor of him not paying grazing fees is that the cattle are so feral that it's laughable for him to claim that he owns them.

[Geminon]

I just read the memorandum, and legal content aside find it to be a confirmation of what a terrible human being Cliven Bundy is. I am a Registered Veterinary Technician working at a mixed animal practice. The practice owner is nearly exclusively a large animal vet, primarily dealing with local dairy and beef herds. How Bundy runs his "ranch" is just not how you manage a herd to be successful. the only reason it has worked out for him is that he inherited a very large and successfully managed herd from his father. If the herd was smaller to start with, it wouldn't be self-sustaining. If he didn't flagrantly, violently violate federal law and the BLM in its attempts to do its job and ensure the land can actually continue to be available for public use, the herd would have starved out long ago. As Civil War Man said above, that's not ranching, it's hunting, and it is callous and cruel to the animals involved.

[Simon_Jester]

Honestly, the best argument in favor of him not paying grazing fees is that the cattle are so feral that it's laughable for him to claim that he owns them.

Honestly, I think that in a court system which favored rougher justice (both more rough, and more just), it would have served him right if a judge had ruled he does not own the cattle, and ordered them all shot as dangerous invasive wild animals on public land.

I am put in mind of a passage from G. K. Chesterton's The Return of Don Quixote, regarding three wealthy British industrialists who managed to get someone to judge labor organizers opposed to them according to medieval law, figuring that the medieval law would oppose labor and uphold capital. The response, in summary:

"Let it be enrolled therefore for the third judgement and the answer to the third plea. These three men have claimed the mastery of a craft and the obedience of all their workmen; and their cause is judged. They make the claim of mastery and they are not masters. They make the claim of property and they are not the proprietors. They make the claim of nobility and they are not nobles. The three pleas are disallowed."

Bundy claims to be a rancher but does not ranch. He claims cattle as his property but shows no signs of upholding his obligations as proprietor over them. He claims the rights of a citzen, but is a traitor.

[Civil War Man]

Bundy claims to be a rancher but does not ranch. He claims cattle as his property but shows no signs of upholding his obligations as proprietor over them. He claims the rights of a citzen, but is a traitor.

I actually think calling him a traitor is giving him too much credit, as it gives his actions a certain political weight that they do not deserve. The politicians and soldiers who formed the CSA were traitors. As far as I'm concerned, Bundy and his ilk are nothing more than bandits.

[Zwinmar]

After reading that I would have to agree that they are nothing more than a bunch of bandits and cattle rustlers. Unless he took the oath of service I do not see how he could be considered a traitor, this is the U.S. where everyone is entitled to their own opinion right up until they trample the rights of others.

[Esquire]

Yep, treason has a very strict legal definition here. Fortunately there's no shortage of other charges.

[Simon_Jester]

Bundy claims to be a rancher but does not ranch. He claims cattle as his property but shows no signs of upholding his obligations as proprietor over them. He claims the rights of a citzen, but is a traitor.

I actually think calling him a traitor is giving him too much credit, as it gives his actions a certain political weight that they do not deserve. The politicians and soldiers who formed the CSA were traitors. As far as I'm concerned, Bundy and his ilk are nothing more than bandits.

Hm.

"Traitor" is the only word I know that I can use to mean "actively spits on his citizenship." Perhaps I should have said "he claims 'his' rights, but shirks his duties..."

[Alyrium Denryle]

Bundy claims to be a rancher but does not ranch. He claims cattle as his property but shows no signs of upholding his obligations as proprietor over them. He claims the rights of a citzen, but is a traitor.

I actually think calling him a traitor is giving him too much credit, as it gives his actions a certain political weight that they do not deserve. The politicians and soldiers who formed the CSA were traitors. As far as I'm concerned, Bundy and his ilk are nothing more than bandits.

Hm.

"Traitor" is the only word I know that I can use to mean "actively spits on his citizenship." Perhaps I should have said "he claims 'his' rights, but shirks his duties..."

Insurrectionist might be better.

[Simon_Jester]

It's not just that he wants to rebel, it's that he wants to have rights and protections but hates the idea of having to follow any laws as the price of getting them.

It is the desire to be protected, while biting the hand that is effectively feeding him, the desire to be left alone, while refusing to do any meaningful work, that makes such a farce out of Bundy.