• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Oregon Wildlife Refuge Occupiers Left Behind A $4M Mess

EMNofSeattle said:
your point?
Click to expand...

If white privilege is a myth, white-right-wing privilege isn't. That, or terrorism is a capricious apparition exploited to denigrate a demographic, justify belligerence, or sanctify despotic power - make your pick.
 
Gaztopian said:
If white privilege is a myth, white-right-wing privilege isn't. That, or terrorism is a capricious apparition exploited to denigrate a demographic, justify belligerence, or sanctify despotic power - make your pick.
Click to expand...

OK, what's your point specific to this, what specifically is driving your complaint, I can read bumper sticker slogans just fine, lets go into details.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
Most of that land is privately adminsitered and those states have far higher population density. I'm aware of very few places out east, in fact, nowhere out east, that's as lightly populated at Wyoming or Montana. or even California. outside of the Bay and the 6 or 7 southern counties of California that place is empty.

much of the Midwest was doled out for homesteading and became private farmland, out west, like I cited with the O&C railroad, it was given out for railroading interest and mining/prospecting claims. in many ways the lands were marginal and in many cases parties recieving it defrauded the government in various ways. until the Bureau of Reclamation came along much of this land was completely useless.

We the people own it through federal management. In some ways the feds manage it wrong but that's partly because in a society where few people actually participate in politics granola crunchers get a disproportionate voice in the decision making.

But what's your solution? sell it all out to private interests? I cannot agree with that. that "solution" will be worse then the "problem"
Click to expand...

The population density argument doesn't fly in my book. See below

federal_lands_copy.jpg

The solution is to allow the citizens in each state to determine the best use of their land. By the stroke of a pen in Washington D.C., the federal government is seizing more and more land from the citizens in the states who own it. This leaves control of the land to the whims of federal government officials who have the ability to apply their ideological whims to policies impacting millions of people.

This federal land grab is an example of what big government looks like. It is an example of how it rules, with little recourse to the people impacted, and how it will overreach every time it decides it wants to.

IMO, this adds fuel to argument against the large government so many people see as the guardian of the future.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
OK, what's your point specific to this, what specifically is driving your complaint, I can read bumper sticker slogans just fine, lets go into details.
Click to expand...

I already indulged you and made my point. Unless you're in disagreement with it, or have something to add to it, what's your point?
 
Gaztopian said:
I already indulged you and made my point. Unless you're in disagreement with it, or have something to add to it, what's your point?
Click to expand...

I want to know what specific point you're making before I respond. I think I know, but I want to know for sure. You're not actually making a point, you're simply griping.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
I want to know what specific point you're making before I respond. I think I know, but I want to know for sure. You're not actually making a point, you're simply griping.
Click to expand...

If you think you know, then respond, and if you think I'm griping, then leave me to my griping.
 
Gaztopian said:
If you think you know, then respond, and if you think I'm griping, then leave me to my griping.
Click to expand...

No, I've heard three different race related complaints involving this occupation, all are wrong on an empirical level, but which one is most on your mind? otherwise you'll weasel around anything I see by changing the topic
 
EMNofSeattle said:
No, I've heard three different race related complaints involving this occupation, all are wrong on an empirical level, but which one is most on your mind? otherwise you'll weasel around anything I see by changing the topic
Click to expand...

Three different race-related complaints? I had no idea such a clear-cut case of racial bias can afford that many speculations. Had the "activists with guns" been of a different complexion, no way in hell it'd have been treated so apologetically and leniently; that's my point. Imagine the national dismay and riot had the occupiers been American Muslims or African Americans.
 
Gaztopian said:
Three different race-related complaints? I had no idea such a clear-cut case of racial bias can afford that many speculations. Had the "activists with guns" been of a different complexion, no way in hell it'd have been treated so apologetically and leniently; that's my point. Imagine the national dismay and riot had the occupiers been American Muslims or African Americans.
Click to expand...

Actually black protestors have used guns for protests before.

case in point, Olympia, Washington in 1968

panthers.jpg

No one was arrested or shot. In fact the panthers were protesting a bill to ban open carry of firearms by openly carrying guns and the bill didn't pass!

Back in the 1990s White suspects were involved in some notable standoffs with federal authorities, two of them related in fatalities, since then the Feds have had a policy of waiting people out and using seige instea of direct confrontation.

In this case the protestors were occupying a building in a rural area and not disrupting any major government functions, time was a luxury the government had. it doesn't matter who the group is, had these protestors been black the response would've been the same.
 
Jack Fabulous said:
This is the building...

View attachment 67199256

These idiots are scum but this story is sensationalist garbage.
Click to expand...

Then there was land damage, destruction of fences, destruction to cameras, likely destruction to the roads, and from what I understand, there was more than a single building. That can easily add up to over $4M. I'm surprised it is estimated that low actually.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
I have to agree with other posters, that is not four million in damage, at least not that's shown in those photos. I'm seeing some cleaning, I guess maybe some new dry wall in one of those photos. The trench of feces can be buried, seriously someone as outdoorsy as you hAs to have used a vault toilet from time to time, the forest service has decades of experience with buried waste.

I'm taking a wild stab that the Dept of Int is reaching their hands out for as much as possible and hoping to get some slush money. That's not four million in damage, maybe there is four million , but those photos do not depict 4M
Click to expand...

Except the latrine was built in an actual archeaological dig site, which is also what could be causing some of the costs. I have no doubt though that this is not even close to most of the damage that was done.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
Then why are we just seeing evidence of junk left behind in a building and a hole dug in teh ground?

Where's the other evidence of 4million in damage - because that's like tornadoes destroyed multiple homes scale of destruction in my state.
Click to expand...

Would it be more impressive to show people the cameras they destroyed? I doubt it. Then there is having to hire someone to search through the computers and ensure that nothing was accessed or what was actually accessed on there. They likely will have to change locks, passwords, and any other security measures.
 
roguenuke said:
Then there was land damage, destruction of fences, destruction to cameras, likely destruction to the roads, and from what I understand, there was more than a single building. That can easily add up to over $4M. I'm surprised it is estimated that low actually.
Click to expand...

I would gladly accept 4 million to repair all of the damage and guarantee that the place would be restored to it's prior condition.

...then I would live comfortably for the rest of my life on the roughly 3.7 million dollar profit.
 
Jack Fabulous said:
I would gladly accept 4 million to repair all of the damage and guarantee that the place would be restored to it's prior condition.

...then I would live comfortably for the rest of my life on the roughly 3.7 million dollar profit.
Click to expand...

You can't repair lost archeological artifacts. And again, this likely is adding many different costs together.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
Actually black protestors have used guns for protests before.

case in point, Olympia, Washington in 1968

View attachment 67199353

No one was arrested or shot. In fact the panthers were protesting a bill to ban open carry of firearms by openly carrying guns and the bill didn't pass!

Back in the 1990s White suspects were involved in some notable standoffs with federal authorities, two of them related in fatalities, since then the Feds have had a policy of waiting people out and using seige instea of direct confrontation.

In this case the protestors were occupying a building in a rural area and not disrupting any major government functions, time was a luxury the government had. it doesn't matter who the group is, had these protestors been black the response would've been the same.
Click to expand...

What a terrible, terrible analogy; and you're one to talk about weaseling one's way around an issue.

First of all, it's telling that you had to go back decades in time to find a remotely comparable case to the Oregon militia. But let's examine your fallacious analogy. It pertains to members of the African American community in the U.S that has suffered of centuries of brutal slavery, racist segregation, and soul-crushing discrimination at the hands of their white overlords to a point where they decided to defend themselves without crossing the constitutional boundaries. The Black Panthers started as the 30 members that participated in the protest you cited, which means the protest happened long before there was any controversy or accusations of criminality regarding the party. The founders were exclusively concerned with monitoring their neighborhoods and the conduct of the brutally racist police corps there. They openly carried guns to portray an image of strength, something that the state of California didn't savor much. As such, it decided to deny those African Americans their constitutional rights and pass a bill that would outlaw open-carry. How did the Black Panthers retaliate? They gathered outside the state's house, invited a horde of journalists to document the protest, and entered the assembly's chamber as racists were debating the bill in question. They stated their objection to the bill and left promptly. From start to finish, they were in observance of the law. Gov. Ronald Reagan, who later ran for president as a champion of the second amendment, eventually signed the racist law a year or two later.

It's troubling and indicative of the warped racial consciousness in the U.S that people would actually make that analogy.

You can sugarcoat the Oregon militia all you want; it doesn't change the fact that these men formed an armed militia, occupied a federal building for 40 days, and repeatedly avowed their mutiny against the government and the intention to kill and be killed if it attempts to redress the situation. It's ironic that you talk about "siege tactics", as the federal authorities didn't form a parameter until after 3 weeks of the takeover and allowed supplies and the freaking mail to be delivered to those patriots. Hell, they even allowed their associates to come and go as they please. At some point, women and kids came to sing to the "protestors".
 
Cleaning up all those dildos must be expensive
 
Gaztopian said:
What a terrible, terrible analogy; and you're one to talk about weaseling one's way around an issue.
Click to expand...

I am not weaseling

First of all, it's telling that you had to go back decades in time to find a remotely comparable case to the Oregon militia. But let's examine your fallacious analogy. It pertains to members of the African American community in the U.S that has suffered of centuries of brutal slavery, racist segregation, and soul-crushing discrimination at the hands of their white overlords to a point where they decided to defend themselves without crossing the constitutional boundaries. The Black Panthers started as the 30 members that participated in the protest you cited, which means the protest happened long before there was any controversy or accusations of criminality regarding the party. The founders were exclusively concerned with monitoring their neighborhoods and the conduct of the brutally racist police corps there. They openly carried guns to portray an image of strength, something that the state of California didn't savor much. As such, it decided to deny those African Americans their constitutional rights and pass a bill that would outlaw open-carry. How did the Black Panthers retaliate? They gathered outside the state's house, invited a horde of journalists to document the protest, and entered the assembly's chamber as racists were debating the bill in question. They stated their objection to the bill and left promptly. From start to finish, they were in observance of the law. Gov. Ronald Reagan, who later ran for president as a champion of the second amendment, eventually signed the racist law a year or two later.
Click to expand...

The picture I showed was in Washington state, California, Reagan, and southern segregationists had nothing to do with it. I chose that one because I have the pictures already on my computer.
I do not have any pictures of this, but in the 1960s a group of African American parents armed with rifles protested at an elementary school in Seattle. no one there was hurt, likewise they were not doing anything illegal. but that's a meaningless distinction since many protest movements do break the law to make points. Personally I have no problem with open carry rallies.

It's troubling and indicative of the warped racial consciousness in the U.S that people would actually make that analogy.
Click to expand...

No it's not

You can sugarcoat the Oregon militia all you want; it doesn't change the fact that these men formed an armed militia, occupied a federal building for 40 days, and repeatedly avowed their mutiny against the government and the intention to kill and be killed if it attempts to redress the situation. It's ironic that you talk about "siege tactics", as the federal authorities didn't form a parameter until after 3 weeks of the takeover and allowed supplies and the freaking mail to be delivered to those patriots. Hell, they even allowed their associates to come and go as they please. At some point, women and kids came to sing to the "protestors".
Click to expand...

Yes they did, and they were also not disrupting major operations of the country as a whole. if they broke into and occupied a federal building in like Manhatten they'd have been run out that day. a small building seasonally occupied by 15 people in Southeast Oregon in the middle of the desert is a different story. you have a luxury of time. If they'd gone in with guns blazing and killed 40 people you can't control what happens as a result of that. The way the feds handled it only one person died and he wouldn't have if he didn't try to draw down on an Oregon State Trooper. if 40 occupiers and who knows how many Federal Agents and State Policemen were killed when it didn't need to happen it would be a national outrage, and could potentially motivate acts of domestic terrorism, much like McVeigh took Waco as his motivation for the Oklahoma City bombing.

If blacks or Arabs or whoever tried starting a sovereign citizen movement on some ranch in Montana out in the middle of nowhere I almost guarantee the Feds would deal with it at their leisure, if there's not a pressing public safety or operational disruption they're going to wait a bit and give people time to calm down and try to resolve it peacably. I do not wish to live in a society where stuff like this is an immediate death sentence. The fact you seemingly do is pretty disturbing.
 
I wonder how much damage law enforcement causes every year when executing search warrants.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
The picture I showed was in Washington state, California, Reagan, and southern segregationists had nothing to do with it. I chose that one because I have the pictures already on my computer.
I do not have any pictures of this, but in the 1960s a group of African American parents armed with rifles protested at an elementary school in Seattle. no one there was hurt, likewise they were not doing anything illegal. but that's a meaningless distinction since many protest movements do break the law to make points. Personally I have no problem with open carry rallies.
Click to expand...

Unless you relinquish the comparison of the dissimilar, or start providing proper context to the cases you're citing, I'm disinclined to indulge hearsay. Furthermore, we agree that both of our cases of black protestation were in observance of the law; the Oregon militants weren't, which, again, renders the comparison irrelevant.


Yes they did, and they were also not disrupting major operations of the country as a whole. if they broke into and occupied a federal building in like Manhatten they'd have been run out that day. a small building seasonally occupied by 15 people in Southeast Oregon in the middle of the desert is a different story. you have a luxury of time. If they'd gone in with guns blazing and killed 40 people you can't control what happens as a result of that. The way the feds handled it only one person died and he wouldn't have if he didn't try to draw down on an Oregon State Trooper. if 40 occupiers and who knows how many Federal Agents and State Policemen were killed when it didn't need to happen it would be a national outrage, and could potentially motivate acts of domestic terrorism, much like McVeigh took Waco as his motivation for the Oklahoma City bombing.
Click to expand...

The occupation of a federal building cannot afford gradation. None of the building's features matters - only what it signifies matters. Every federal building in the country is the federal government - to attack one is to attack the federal government. A sovereign would tolerate no such mutiny unless partiality skews his judgement.

If blacks or Arabs or whoever tried starting a sovereign citizen movement on some ranch in Montana out in the middle of nowhere I almost guarantee the Feds would deal with it at their leisure, if there's not a pressing public safety or operational disruption they're going to wait a bit and give people time to calm down and try to resolve it peacably. I do not wish to live in a society where stuff like this is an immediate death sentence. The fact you seemingly do is pretty disturbing
Click to expand...

Either sophistry or oblivion to the American racial reality would permit you to make that ridiculous claim. Either way, I shall have none of it.

Most importantly, however, it's your infelicity that you find it abhorrent to live in a state where the rule of law and the sovereignty of the state are equally respected by all. I don't wish to live in a society where thugs can take a governmental building hostage for 40 days and be allowed to come and go as they please, receive mail and aid, have people over for pleasant evenings around the fire, and threaten to massacre authorities only to be allowed to go home with a slap on the wrist. I find it disturbing that you seem to have a liking for anarchy.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Read more here: The Oregon Wildlife Refuge Occupiers Left Behind A $4M Mess (PHOTOS)

Look at the pictures, they just trashed your public property.

By the way, Oregon's outdoor industry brings in 12 billion a year into the state while cattle ranching is less than 1 billion (you can hear about that here: BBC World Service - The Documentary, America?s Angry Cowboys )[/FONT][/COLOR]
Click to expand...

The protestors should have cleaned it up.

But dont you mean their public property? Its federal park, which means its owned by the protestors too. I dont recall any snide remarks from the left when John Stewarts rally produced tons of trash. Or Occupy Wall Street.
 
jonny5 said:
The protestors should have cleaned it up.

But dont you mean their public property? Its federal park, which means its owned by the protestors too. I dont recall any snide remarks from the left when John Stewarts rally produced tons of trash. Or Occupy Wall Street.
Click to expand...

You won't find me defending OWS trashing parks either.
 
Ahlevah said:
I wonder how much damage law enforcement causes every year when executing search warrants.
Click to expand...

How much is a life worth? They sometimes kill people. Even in this Oregon protest, one protester was killed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom