Hundreds of Armed Right-Wing Militia Members Take Over Federal Building

@Glennn,

You must be thinking of your wife, she sounds lovely.

There is a very good article in this morning's paper about the history of the land:

Quote:

Supreme Court already ruled that feds rightly own occupied refuge

Occupiers of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge question whether the federal government has unequivocal legal rights to own and manage that land, without regard to the wishes of local property owners and ranchers.

Improbably, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on exactly that question, specifically regarding the lands of the original Malheur national refuge -- twice.

Those rulings by the nation's highest court, in 1902 and in 1935, found that the federal government has an incontrovertible claim to the refuge's wetlands and lakebeds, dating back to the 1840s, when Oregon was still a territory.

"Before Oregon was admitted to statehood, the United States is shown to have acquired title which it has never in terms conveyed away," Justice Harlan Stone wrote in 1935.

The decisions underscore the area's long record of controversy over land rights -- and show that the current occupiers' claims are not backed by historical fact.

more: http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2016/01/supreme_court_already_ruled_th.html

1 Reply

@boomerang,

Quote:

There is a very good article in this morning's paper about the history of the land:

It is a good article, and it adds to the many already posted here that are designed to show that, constitutionally, the federal government has the right to "own" land. But that really misses the point.

I myself posted some rather lengthy excerpts from a seemingly neutral, scholarly law article on the topic. Some of the constitutional questions raised relate to the permissible reasons for the feds to continue to own, operate, regulate, profit from, etc. land to which it holds title.

And, of course, there are always the political questions pertaining to the right way to administer/dispose of federal land , as opposed to the simple question of the right of the feds to even own land to begin with.

One such article, which I commented on, spent a few pages quibbling about the use of the word "return." The argument was that one should ask/demand/advocate that land be "transferred," not "returned."

My comment was: Fine, call it transfer, instead of "return," now what? There was no response to that question.

1 Reply

@layman,

Sometimes people think that if they can establish a "right" to do something, then that automatically proves that it is the right thing to do. For example, States in this country have the"right" to impose capital punishment, but that doesn't mean that it was "right" every time an execution was carried out, eh?

1 Reply

@layman,

I'm not sure anyone really believes that, but I see your point. For my part,
I think that things should be managed at the lowest level practicable. So
even though the federal government had the right to manage a parcel of
land within a state, it would be better for the state to do so if it could.

1 Reply

What is the point in granting "state sovereignty" to, say, Nevada, but then retaining title to almost 90% of the state? Why not just call one the "state of BLM" and the other the "county" of Nevada?

The stats I see say that title to over 50% of the land in western states, collectively, is still held in the name of the federal government. Why not just call all of that the "State" or "Territory" of Federal Land Management? and be done with it. Sure, it would be far larger than Texas, Alaska, or any other state, but it would be less confusing.

Maybe they could just make it all one big-ass super secret military site, off-limits to all citizens, eh?

0 Replies

@George,

Quote:

So even though the federal government had the right to manage a parcel of land within a state, it would be better for the state to do so if it could.

A lot of people in state government in the West seem to agree with that, George.

0 Replies

@glitterbag,

Quote:

You must be thinking of your wife, she sounds lovely.

You call me a Mr. Know-it-all for not knowing what your gender is, despite the fact that your avatar cannot be construed as either male or female. I respond with a joke about how it must have been the short hair and the baggy sweatshirt that fooled me. It was a joke intended to highlight the fact that I am not at fault for not realizing your gender.

You respond by insulting my wife?

2 Replies

@Glennn,

Quote:

You respond by insulting my wife?

Yeah, Glenn, that doesn't seem to be Glitter's standard M.O., which is generally to insult your mother if she doesn't approve of you, eh?

It's generally along the lines of how negligent/incompetent/ignorant/morally bankrupt/etc. your mother must be for having produced a piece of crap like you, ya know? Always entertaining, I must say.

1 Reply

@layman,

Quote:

Yeah, Glenn, that doesn't seem to be Glitter's standard M.O., which is generally to insult your mother if she doesn't approve of you, eh?

Notice how I'm taking the high road here by not not insulting her mother for failing to teach her some respect.

0 Replies

This is how you do civil disobedience. A box of tampons sent priority mail to the YallQueda occupation in Oregon.
Packaging...

Calculating...

Sent...

0 Replies

@layman,

This sounds very unspecific. Do you have any particular case in mind?

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

This sounds very unspecific. Do you have any particular case in mind?

How about you answer my questions first, eh, Ollie? To wit:

Quote:

By the way, did you look at the link I gave you?

Do you even intend to?

1 Reply

Tales from the Hackneyed Demagogue: "Therefore, history is evil"

https://www.hackcanada.com/canadian/zines/spacemoose/demagogue.gif

0 Replies

@layman,

Again, lots of blah blah blah but nothing specific.

Moore had a dozen fact-checkers working for him on that and other movies, and I remember reviewing in detail all the allegations piled on him way back then, and finding very little actual, genuine ground for complaint. Most of it was of the caricature type: a fact is being portrayed in a simplified and slightly caricatured way. That is fine in my book: a documentary must simplify the material it represents - that is always tghe case that there is much more to say about a topic than what you can cram in 90 mn. Besides, caricatures are often "truer than the truth", in the sense that they highlight a particular vice or problem worth highlighting.

You do that all the time yourself right here: you caricature what some other poster is saying. Caricature, if understood and accepted as caricature, is different from lying. And anyone watching Moore knows that he is stressing points, that he is punching as hard as he can, that he's not in the business of quietly presenting the pros and cons in a dispationate way.

So... I challenge you to find 5 (five) facts that Moore got wrong in the entire movie. Not points where he could have presented things in a slightly more rounded way, because no movie can exhaust its subject, whoever the director. Not things where he did not allow the bushists to present their case, because he doesn't have to give them a pulprit. No, I want 5 cases where according to you he clearly misrepresented reality or says a lie.

Let's see what you got.

0 Replies

@layman,

Olivier5 wrote:

So... I challenge you to find 5 (five) facts that Moore got wrong in the entire movie.

I'll ask you for a third time, Ollie:

Quote:

By the way, did you look at the link I gave you?

Do you even intend to?

[/quote]

1 Reply

@Glennn,

Glennn wrote:

Quote:
You must be thinking of your wife, she sounds lovely.

You call me a Mr. Know-it-all for not knowing what your gender is, despite the fact that your avatar cannot be construed as either male or female. I respond with a joke about how it must have been the short hair and the baggy sweatshirt that fooled me. It was a joke intended to highlight the fact that I am not at fault for not realizing your gender.

You respond by insulting my wife?

Nice try, but you know that was meant for you. I've always marveled that people like you fling derogatory insults with ease then get all faux offended if someone returns the favor. Somehow you feel comfortable spouting off but see red if it gets sent back to you. Once again, I'll never understand why a man who gets a return smart ass remark after they fling the first insult, has the unmitigated gall to pretend that their mother, their kids their wife or their dog and American flag have been somehow debased. That's a cowards move. If it stings pretend it was a far greater offense and redirect the umbrage.

I'd expect nothing less from you.

1 Reply

@layman,

I just did. He found 3 "falsehoods" in the movie, ie lies or things Moore was factually wrong about. There's a larger number of "deceits" but these are less clear-cut cases. He concludes by:

Quote:

Nonetheless, I would not want Michael Moore’s sometimes sloppy research and manipulative editing to detract from the valid points made in the film, nor to be used as an occasion to advance the neo-conservative agenda wholesale, while characterizing dissenters as terrorist supporters. This base level of discourse is unworthy of the intellects of Kopel and others, and I hope to have ameliorated it somewhat by giving a more moderate treatment to these touchy subjects, letting both sides have it when they deserve it. For myself, I have left open the possibility of being mistaken on several of these judgments, and I believe this as an essential component of civilized discourse. Thank you for reading.

IOW, Kopel is a far worse liar than Moore... Smile

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

I just did.

That's what I figured.

Quote:

He found 3 "falsehoods" in the movie, ie lies or things Moore was factually wrong about.

You misread that, and imply that the "deceits" were not false and were not lies. As expected, you come away with what suits your purposes.

Quote:

There's a larger number of "deceits" but these are less clear-cut cases.

You misconstrue and/or misrepresent this too. The "less clear-cut cases" are not less clear cut. Nor are they anything less than what would be called a "lie." For example:

Quote:

Deceit 3 was a blatant falsehood, and probable lie...

I actually discern two distinct deceits here. First is the blatant falsehood about Bush’s limousine being pelted with eggs and not being able to conduct the traditional walk to the White House.

Second is Moore’s use of Bush’s now infamous “haves and have-mores” quote, which seemed like a damning indictment of the president, yet in fact it was part of an extended self-parody for a Catholic charity. This misuse of editing violates the basic trust of the audience.

In all, this liberal concludes that there are:

Quote:

•21 Deceits
•3 Possible Deceits / False Implications
•3 Falsehoods / Inaccurate Statements
•1 Cheap Shot
•1 Misleading Depiction

Do you want to modify your unqualified claim that what Moore says is "true," Ollie, and/or that Hitchens has "nothing" and has merely been brainwashed by "neoconservatives?"

1 Reply

@glitterbag,

Quote:

Nice try, but you know that was meant for you. I've always marveled that people like you fling derogatory insults with ease then get all faux offended if someone returns the favor.

You are having short-term memory problems. If you will recall, you threw the first insult out there when you referred to Layman and myself as being about as sharp as a bowl of oatmeal for the "crime" of asking bob for the source of a "fact" he posted.

Quote:

I'll never understand why a man who gets a return smart ass remark after they fling the first insult, has the unmitigated gall to pretend that their mother, their kids their wife or their dog and American flag have been somehow debased. That's a cowards move.

So, in view of the fact that I just reminded you that you threw out the first insult, how do you feel about having been shown that, according to your own definitions, you pulled a coward's move? Don't you just hate it when this kind of thing happens to you?

2 Replies

Hundreds of Armed Right-Wing Militia Members Take Over Federal Building

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know