Ammon Bundy urges protesters to leave refuge

zoo22

Well-known member
Ammon Bundy urges protesters to leave refuge

"Right now, I am asking the federal government to allow the people at the refuge to go home without being prosecuted," the statement read. "To those remaining at the refuge, I love you. Let us take this fight from here. Please stand down. Go home and hug your families. This fight is ours for now in the courts. Please go home."

Good, I'm glad he made that statement. I hope it goes smoothly and the Feds let them wrap it up and get out of there.

The Feds have apparently said "anyone remaining at the refuge would be allowed to leave after being identified at law enforcement checkpoints that have been set up."
 

Quetzal

New member
I don't think they should be pardoned. It sets a precedence that will allow this kind of thing to happen again in the future.
 

zoo22

Well-known member
I don't think they should be pardoned. It sets a precedence that will allow this kind of thing to happen again in the future.

I wonder what will happen. I'm pretty much okay with them occupying the federal reserve building, but not with them setting up an armed compound there, on a federal reserve. It's public land. Making a political statement or raising awareness is one thing, but turning a public place into some sort of war zone (because they think God told them to) is another. I don't really like armed religious extremists.
 

drbrumley

Well-known member
I wonder what will happen. I'm pretty much okay with them occupying the federal reserve building, but not with them setting up an armed compound there, on a federal reserve. It's public land. Making a political statement or raising awareness is one thing, but turning a public place into some sort of war zone (because they think God told them to) is another. I don't really like armed religious extremists.

You would have hated it back in the 1760's and 70's....
 

rexlunae

New member
He may yet salvage some of his honor by preventing his fellows from throwing away their lives. We'll see. Hopefully this ridiculous movement is about ready to wind down.
 

Krsto

Well-known member
You would have hated it back in the 1760's and 70's....

I was wondering when comparisons to the American Revolution would be made. Unfortunately, our founding fathers did not have a just cause for a revolt. "Taxation without representation" and we are going to kill off Redcoats? Seriously? Our nation sure has a history of accepting any excuse to kill people.
 

aCultureWarrior

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoo22
I wonder what will happen. I'm pretty much okay with them occupying the federal reserve building, but not with them setting up an armed compound there, on a federal reserve. It's public land. Making a political statement or raising awareness is one thing, but turning a public place into some sort of war zone (because they think God told them to) is another. I don't really like armed religious extremists.

You would have hated it back in the 1760's and 70's....

In more ways than one.

https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=7&article=1126

That being said: As a Libertarian you really don't need a good reason for anyone to take on the government. Your movement inherently has a hatred of government, no matter what good or evil they do (and in the case of the Hammonds and Bundy's, government has been extremely evil).
 

zoo22

Well-known member
You would have hated it back in the 1760's and 70's....


Well, I


































Oh whoops, sorry, you put me to sleep.

What were you saying? Painting the Bundy's armed hissy fit as comparable to the American Revolution? Um... Yeah. I understand you need heroes for your tri-corner hat freedom fighting fantasies and your libertarian constitution/Magna Carta mash-ups, but I sure wish you could find better than the Bundys.

And no, in terms of religious insanity, I don't think I'd care much for the late 1700's.

.
 

aCultureWarrior

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Well, I Oh whoops, sorry, you put me to sleep.

What were you saying? Painting the Bundy's armed hissy fit as comparable to the American Revolution? Um... Yeah. I understand you need heroes for your tri-corner hat freedom fighting fantasies and your libertarian constitution/Magna Carta mash-ups, but I sure wish you could find better than the Bundys.

And no, in terms of religious insanity, I don't think I'd care much for the late 1700's.

.

i.e. zoo HATES God with a passion.
 

THall

New member
If any of you had a clue as to what
the corrupt Federal Government does
to ranchers and farmers and miners on
a daily basis, you might understand,
but I doubt it.
 

zoo22

Well-known member
Haha oh man, when I heard the news I knew THAll'd be running over to TOL to swagger around and blurt out some of his angry say-nothingisms :chuckle:
 

Krsto

Well-known member
If any of you had a clue as to what
the corrupt Federal Government does
to ranchers and farmers and miners on
a daily basis, you might understand,
but I doubt it.

So far the feds have been subsidizing their lavish lifestyles. Gotta hand it to them ranchers, romantic folk heroes they like to pose as, they sure know how to get what they want.

Then you've got the Bundys who up and decide they don't want to pay grazing fees so all their rich neighbors get to subsidize their lavish lifestyles instead of them paying their fair share of the fees. I think most of their fellow ranchers didn't care for that.

Of course the real end game is for rich people like the Bundys to get a hold of the mineral rights so they can mine the uranium and get even richer, rather than let the people's representative (the government) decide who or if anyone gets to mine the ore, or save the land for wildlife, as many of the people prefer.

So a rancher only has to buy a few hundred acres for his cattle which isn't enough to sustain a herd and then has to depend on the largess of the government bureaucrats to let them graze on public land. That isn't any more sustainable, or wise, than people spending thousands of dollars on trailer homes and put them on lots they don't own. Perhaps these ranchers need to realize they are like the buggy whip manufacturers that were crying because they were being put out of business by the new auto industry. They are trying to sustain a bygone industry that is going to get replaced by something else the people would rather have: public lands for wildlife, hunting, fishing, and other things besides cows. Let's call the Bundys for what they are: greedy rich people trying to take control of what belongs to everyone.

Nah, the so called abuses are a smoke screen. Their real intent is reclaiming all federal land and returning it to local control, even the land the US bought before the land had any local governments. After all, thar's gold, and uranium, in them thar hills.
 
Last edited:

aCultureWarrior

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
If any of you had a clue as to what
the corrupt Federal Government does
to ranchers and farmers and miners on
a daily basis, you might understand,
but I doubt it.

TOL's leftists have no clue about anything else, why should this topic be any different?
 

User Name

Well-known member
Banned
Temp Banned
If any of you had a clue as to what
the corrupt Federal Government does
to ranchers and farmers and miners on
a daily basis, you might understand,
but I doubt it.

If that's true then the way to handle this is by bringing about change through political activism and legislation, not by taking up arms.
 

aCultureWarrior

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
If that's true then the way to handle this is by bringing about change through political activism and legislation, not by taking up arms.

So civil disobedience is only justified when you leftists do it?

MLK1.jpeg
 

User Name

Well-known member
Banned
Temp Banned
So civil disobedience is only justified when you leftists do it?

In the case of the civil rights movement, people were being attacked and having their rights actively violated, just for being who they were. But the movement was only civil when it worked non-violently for change, and generally speaking, that's what it did.
 

Foxfire

Well-known member
So civil disobedience is only justified when you leftists do it?

MLK1.jpeg

"Civil Disobedience", by definition, ceases to be "civil" the moment firearms are introduced as the order of the day.

I don't ever recall seeing Dr. King brandishing his revolvers with any particular relish or frequency.

* and I really don't think that that lapel pin is the message that he was actually trying to convey. Do you?
 

Krsto

Well-known member
So civil disobedience is only justified when you leftists do it?

MLK1.jpeg

Threatening others with deadly force is not civil disobedience. Civil disobedience is just not doing what the unjust law requires. It can't even be used as an excuse for not paying taxes when you don't like what those taxes go for. At least from a Jesus honoring perspective, that is.
 
Top