Burns Oregon Refuge Takeover Ends In Blood

Personally, I consider people who call themselves "sovereign citizens" to be loonies. You know the type, only one tooth, sitting on the porch plucking a banjo while jerking off their basset hound somewhere where the buses don't run. I mean, "Deliverance" loony.

Personally, I consider people who call themselves "sovereign citizens" to be loonies. You know the type, only one tooth, sitting on the porch plucking a banjo while jerking off their basset hound somewhere where the buses don't run. I mean, "Deliverance" loony.

Wow, such stupidity.

"Sovereign citizens" come in all shapes and sizes, and are not limited to one specific group of people.

I'm not in agreement with the way he's presented his argument here but let's be honest. The representative face of the sovereign citizen movement -- like it or not -- is that of an entitled upper-middle-class white twit who wants to get out of taxes or other civil fees of some sort.

I'm just saying that while I don't agree with what he said, there's still an overall poor impression of that particular "movement" that a large number of people representing it give.

They give it to themselves though.

It's not like the Republican or democrat parties, where most of the people who identify themselves as either party are good, honest people, but their representatives, elected or not, are general idiots or ***. The "movement" twits all represent themselves pretty well.

However, most of them that you wind up hearing about causing trouble on the news are shy a load of teeth and do live out where the buses don't run.

Something Pleebo and I agree on. The world must have gone mad!

amn't

It is an intrusion into the judiciary by the legislative branch.

I would probably cut the power, cut the water, cut off everything. Then wait them out.

And the mail service, and the bloody internet that's still on for some reason

I think they should blast Justin Beiber songs 24 hours a day until they take their own lives after 20 minutes.

Personally, I consider people who call themselves "sovereign citizens" to be loonies. You know the type, only one tooth, sitting on the porch plucking a banjo while jerking off their basset hound somewhere where the buses don't run. I mean, "Deliverance" loony.

I would like to point out that at least preliminary searches reveal no website that even begins to discuss the BLM "forcing" people to sell land that isn't basically a conservative-to-ultra-conservative blogs.

I would not cite ThinkProgress or the Huffington Post as a valid news source and I won't accept the right wing equivalents as valid news sources either.

I just can't find any credible sources that are willing to backup this assertion of people being forced to sell land, let alone willing to go into detail about the why and how. Are they employing eminent domain? And under what premise?

I'm not about to defend government actions I'm not clear on, but I'm also not about to rush to the defense of "poor ranchers being forced to sell" when I can find no evidence of this being the case. I do know, from personal experience however, that a lot of the conservative rural population doesn't really understand how their own subsidies and suppressed fees from the government constitute a form of welfare/entitlement tailored to them.

As for my reference to mining or foresting, etc., I was citing that as an example of why I would never support selling federal land to private entities or even turning it over to the states. Those things would inevitably happen if the Bundys and their ilk got their way.

Seriously. Again I say, I am looking into this situation, I simply don't see anything that isn't a strongly-opinionated conservative/sovereign citizen-type blog saying what's being said in defense of these ranchers.

Yet I still admit I understand how they perceive themselves as slighted. Generations of being taught to play the victim will do that.

I personally have been put out of business by government regulation that has not been through the legislative process.

So I can tend to believe the BLM is doing exactly what they say it is doing. Especially since none of this was happening at all until the BLM took over the and the grazing agency.

You are insulting banjos and basset hounds there bunky.

I personally have been put out of business by government regulation that has not been through the legislative process.

Centralia's an interesting case. Big Mining caused an underground coal fire that, to this day after over 50 years, still burns. Heck, unless you live there you can't get anywhere near the place.
In fact, it's due to cases like Centralia and the 1930s-era Dustbowl that led to the policies the BLM enforces today.

It's also generally thought to be haunted.

Legislative process? The only power the legislative branch of the government has over the BLM is how much money they have (granted, through the Department of the Interior budget).

Bureau of Land Management is a completely executive branch of the government, controlled by the Department of the Interior and overseen by the president.

Please don't.

They have been empowered by the executive branch -- ordered as such by the legislative branch -- in their duty.

Specifically at this time the Federal Land Policy and Management Act.

That law limits the power the Bureau has, but it is still directed by the executive branch. The legislative branch is not overseeing the agency.