Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
Your rep is 25 with almost 5500 posts. Take a look at the rep of other posters with post counts in your neighborhood. I'm pretty sure it won't support your claim that "the other guys love it!"
150 Terrorists invade Oregon
- Thread starter The Thriller
- Start date
Red
Well-Known Member
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/4...ge-held-by-armed-group/ar-BBoe5ST?ocid=HPCDHP
"Thousands of archaeological artifacts — and maps detailing where more can be found — are kept inside the national wildlife refuge buildings currently being held by an armed group of protestors angry over federal land policy.
Ryan Bundy, one of the leaders of the group occupying the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in southeastern Oregon, says they have no real interest in the antiquities. Still, their access to the artifacts and maps has some worried that looters could take advantage of the situation.
"There's a huge market for artifacts, especially artifacts that have provenance, where you can identify where they came from," said Carla Burnside, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's refuge archeologist.
More than 300 recorded prehistoric sites are scattered across the refuge, including burial grounds, ancient villages and petroglyphs. Some of the artifacts — including spears, stone tools, woven baskets and beads — date back 9,800 years."
"......Scientists are also worried about unintentional damage that could be done to the prehistoric sites by cattle, vehicles and heavy equipment.
The group at the ranch has driven road graders and other large construction equipment around the refuge headquarters buildings, but Bundy said they haven't used the machinery to move any earth. He wouldn't rule out that possibility, however.
In 2014, Ryan Bundy and supporters of the Bundy family rode ATVs on federal land closed to motorized vehicles in Utah as part of a protest. Their route took them along an illegal trail that crossed through Native American archeological sites."
Bundy said people interested in archeology are welcome to explore the refuge, but that cattle ranchers and loggers should have priority when it comes to land use.
"Before white man came, so to speak, there was nothing to keep cattle from tromping on those things," Bundy said.
Though some countries had domesticated cattle 10,000 years ago, the animals came to the United States with European settlers.
"We also recognize that the Native Americans had the claim to the land, but they lost that claim," Bundy said. "There are things to learn from cultures of the past, but the current culture is the most important."
------------------
I don't know if significant damage was done to sites in earlier protests, but our prehistoric/ historic cultural resources are also under federal protection, and for good reason. Once destroyed, they cannot be repaired. The info that comes from artifacts preserved in context is destroyed. In so many words, the protestors attitude seems to be the present and present culture trumps the past. They drove through ancient sites previously despite being asked not to......
"Before white man came, so to speak, there was nothing to keep cattle from tromping on those things," Bundy said.
Besides the fact that no, there were no cattle before white men, Bundy is basically saying nobody was protecting these cultural resources before, so why care about those cultural resources now? Or as he likes to call our irreplaceable cultural resources, "those things". Lovers of the past these people are not......
"Thousands of archaeological artifacts — and maps detailing where more can be found — are kept inside the national wildlife refuge buildings currently being held by an armed group of protestors angry over federal land policy.
Ryan Bundy, one of the leaders of the group occupying the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in southeastern Oregon, says they have no real interest in the antiquities. Still, their access to the artifacts and maps has some worried that looters could take advantage of the situation.
"There's a huge market for artifacts, especially artifacts that have provenance, where you can identify where they came from," said Carla Burnside, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's refuge archeologist.
More than 300 recorded prehistoric sites are scattered across the refuge, including burial grounds, ancient villages and petroglyphs. Some of the artifacts — including spears, stone tools, woven baskets and beads — date back 9,800 years."
"......Scientists are also worried about unintentional damage that could be done to the prehistoric sites by cattle, vehicles and heavy equipment.
The group at the ranch has driven road graders and other large construction equipment around the refuge headquarters buildings, but Bundy said they haven't used the machinery to move any earth. He wouldn't rule out that possibility, however.
In 2014, Ryan Bundy and supporters of the Bundy family rode ATVs on federal land closed to motorized vehicles in Utah as part of a protest. Their route took them along an illegal trail that crossed through Native American archeological sites."
Bundy said people interested in archeology are welcome to explore the refuge, but that cattle ranchers and loggers should have priority when it comes to land use.
"Before white man came, so to speak, there was nothing to keep cattle from tromping on those things," Bundy said.
Though some countries had domesticated cattle 10,000 years ago, the animals came to the United States with European settlers.
"We also recognize that the Native Americans had the claim to the land, but they lost that claim," Bundy said. "There are things to learn from cultures of the past, but the current culture is the most important."
------------------
I don't know if significant damage was done to sites in earlier protests, but our prehistoric/ historic cultural resources are also under federal protection, and for good reason. Once destroyed, they cannot be repaired. The info that comes from artifacts preserved in context is destroyed. In so many words, the protestors attitude seems to be the present and present culture trumps the past. They drove through ancient sites previously despite being asked not to......
"Before white man came, so to speak, there was nothing to keep cattle from tromping on those things," Bundy said.
Besides the fact that no, there were no cattle before white men, Bundy is basically saying nobody was protecting these cultural resources before, so why care about those cultural resources now? Or as he likes to call our irreplaceable cultural resources, "those things". Lovers of the past these people are not......
Last edited:
Red
Well-Known Member
Here's how much the Bundy's and their supporters care about our nation's prehistoric cultural resources.
They respect themselves, and only themselves.....
https://www.thewire.com/national/20...ve-atvs-through-native-american-ruins/362053/
"If there's one thing that will get your point across and persuade the general public to support your cause, it's driving a bunch of ATVs through Native American ruins and burials."
"Damage to archaeological sites is permanent and the information about our collective past is then lost forever," said Jerry Spangler, director of the Colorado Plateau Archaeological Alliance. "It is sad that irreplaceable treasures of importance to all Americans would be sacrificed on the altar of anti-government fervor. It is worse that protesters would be so blinded to their own insensitivity as to what others consider to be sacred treasures of their past."
They respect themselves, and only themselves.....
https://www.thewire.com/national/20...ve-atvs-through-native-american-ruins/362053/
"If there's one thing that will get your point across and persuade the general public to support your cause, it's driving a bunch of ATVs through Native American ruins and burials."
"Damage to archaeological sites is permanent and the information about our collective past is then lost forever," said Jerry Spangler, director of the Colorado Plateau Archaeological Alliance. "It is sad that irreplaceable treasures of importance to all Americans would be sacrificed on the altar of anti-government fervor. It is worse that protesters would be so blinded to their own insensitivity as to what others consider to be sacred treasures of their past."
Last edited:
I can't speak knowledgeably about anyone else's ideas or beliefs, but I expect that where huge differences exist there will always be huge value gaps, people not caring about things that are important to others. I don't expect some old line cattle family folks to care much about archaeology, but I know of a lot of them that do care. This sort of talk smacks of bigotry to me, and if anything when confronting others who are not on the same page, one thing gets you ignored pretty quickly and that is going whole hog on more bigotry.
The Sheriff can take care of this situation and resolve it. If the Fed agencies have these concerns, they should go to a judge and file a complaint, and seek a court order to vacate the site. If the judge finds the case worthy of action, he will issue a summons, or the court will automatically do so if charges are filed. The Sheriff should then deliver the complaints and the summons to the folks in person on the site. They will be obligated to take their response to the court, to show up for a hearing. If they don't come, that preferably local court or state district court can issue arrest warrants that can be used by the Sheriff in making those arrests.
It sort of sounds like the Bundy bunch is claiming sovereignty of something like that over that place. If that is the case, they might order the Sheriff out, saying he lacks jurisdiction. If that is the case, this is an armed rebellion. Quite distinct in my mind because of the claim and purpose to establish legal jurisdiction and to somehow validate that claim on some legal pretext. But hey, the Southern States tried armed rebellion once. If you can win the fight, you have your independence.
But I don't think I'm gonna go join their fray. I agree that federal land management is less worthy of respect than local, or state administration, and either way that our lands are subject to abuse by politically-influential people with inordinate access to the decision-making. The only way to fix that is for more people to take an interest, in the last analysis. But if they are all ignorant political ideologues, the land is just going to be abused by one faction or another of political visionaries with more interest in their cause than the actual land.
If I could influence the Bundy bunch, I'd urge them to break camp and go home in the dead of night. If I was Obama, I'd send a mediator to just listen and write down their complaints and bring it to my office for review, saying I'd like to discuss it all sometime over the tables of some committee of Congress, taking whatever testimony or evidence they have in support of their grievance, and then I'd let them go home. Obama would do a lot to defuse some issues people have with their government. I give him immense credit for not pushing this thing over the brink into a shootout.
Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
Agreed. I'm grateful that Obama hasn't acted the way that Thriller and others like him are hoping for. Nothing good could come of it. I haven't been a fan of the president, but I definitely give him credit for this.
Red
Well-Known Member
This might be a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation for the federal government, but damned if you do involves forceful removal, and that almost certainly means bloodshed. That's not going to happen. The federal government is not going to precipitate a gun fight at this wildlife refuge. It's a flashpoint in a broader based anti-government movement. The Feds do not want to create martyrs for the movement, and there is no need for forcing the occupier's hand. They're not holding hostages.
Red
Well-Known Member
The damned if you don't approach of allowing the occupation to continue empowers the occupiers and the broader based anti-government movement. But the Feds prefer to live with that, rather then attempt to end the occupation in a hail of bullets. Which would make martyrs of the occupiers and further enrage their followers throughout the West. All in the interest of saying "this is a federal refuge and we will not tolerate an armed takeover of a federal building.". You might think you need to save federal face by storming the refuge and possibly killing any who take up arms to resist, but if you want their movement to find more followers, then do just that. They can sit there until all the cows come home before we see that happen. This is not a war. Yet. The Feds could end it anytime they chose. And in the long run, make matters far worse. Far better to take the damned if you don't approach. Unless the occupiers take prisoners and threaten them with harm, there is no justification to simply blow them away just to save federal face and assert federal authority. Showing restraint is showing strength.
It's a wildlife refuge. They are not occupying the Supreme Court, holding the justices hostage. They are part of an anti-federal government movement, and they are flexing their muscles. It puts the Feds in a bind,,but it does not truly threaten federal sovereignty. Unless you think a handful of guys at a wildlife refuge in the wilderness are such a threat. We have a lot of problems in this country right now. The cultural war is ongoing, and tearing Americans asunder. The political war is intense. We have a true demagogue running for the highest office, and thriving in this Civil War like climate permeating our body politic. It's not going away anytime soon. But choosing to end this occupation by armed removal would be the worse resolution imaginable. I don't believe there is any justification for that until or unless the occupiers threaten human life themselves. Wait it out and find a resolution that saves face for all. Regardless of how long they occupy a wildlife refuge.....
It's a wildlife refuge. They are not occupying the Supreme Court, holding the justices hostage. They are part of an anti-federal government movement, and they are flexing their muscles. It puts the Feds in a bind,,but it does not truly threaten federal sovereignty. Unless you think a handful of guys at a wildlife refuge in the wilderness are such a threat. We have a lot of problems in this country right now. The cultural war is ongoing, and tearing Americans asunder. The political war is intense. We have a true demagogue running for the highest office, and thriving in this Civil War like climate permeating our body politic. It's not going away anytime soon. But choosing to end this occupation by armed removal would be the worse resolution imaginable. I don't believe there is any justification for that until or unless the occupiers threaten human life themselves. Wait it out and find a resolution that saves face for all. Regardless of how long they occupy a wildlife refuge.....
https://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/01/protester_arrested_in_burns_dr.html
We needed our snacks!
We needed our snacks!
Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
I love the government response so far. It would be awesome of they grabbed one of them for jaywalking and threw the book at him.
They already are doing somehting like that. They grabbed one of them that drove a federally owned car at the refuge and drove it to the Burns. OR supermarket. They got him on the "unathorized use of a federal vehicle". Not sure of the level of charge that is or what kind of sentence the man could be looking at.
Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
Up to 5 years. The reason I wrote my post was in response to an article someone posted about that incident. What I'm saying with the jaywalking is that it would be funny if they busted these guys as a result of violating laws that are overlooked every day.
Here are some good opportunities: https://www.dumblaws.com/laws/united-states/oregon
Imagine if they busted these guys for failing to drip dry their dishes.
Or what if some of them went to Marion and walked backwards eating donuts? Bust these guys on technicalities!
I would. I nail them as they come off 1 by 1 for things. Suddenly they turn around and there are 5 of them. That's when I show up and offer to let them walk off and go home, including those arrested. If not I simply don't allow any supplies thru and pick them off as they come out.
carolinajazz
Well-Known Member
Speaking of a Wildlife Refuge, there's one about 30 miles from me just outside of Savannah, Ga! It's so polluted that the alligators have turned "orange" rather than there normal color of black! We use to camp out on the Savannah River years ago...until we started "glowing" in the dark from taking showers using that water! There's a "bomb plant" just north of there where they manufacture "Plutonium"! I'm sure they dump that nuclear waste right into the Savannah River and have been doing it for years! You ever seen a "orange" alligator? Use to be great camping though...snakes all over the place!
jimmy eat jazz
Well-Known Member
Which begs the question, just who is giving this bigot positive reps and why?
jimmy eat jazz
Well-Known Member
Out of curiosity, I have two questions.
1. What are the tactics that Black Lives Matter is using that turn people against their cause?
2. What strategy would you recommend for Blacks to adopt to get people to take both notice and action about the multiple sources of institutionalized/systemic racial bias that Blacks face on a daily basis?
I think that if you look at many social protest movements over time, groups thought to be 'extremist' at the time advocated views that today are considered, if not mainstream, non-extreme, and which at the time turned off many people.
I have a difficult time separating legitimate criticism of Black Lives Matter from the knee-jerk reaction one can expect from explicit racists or from otherwise normal people with implicit racial biases or who (for some strange reason) perceive that demonstrating fealty to their right wing tribe compels them to downplay the role that racism continues to play in US society or to even attempt any kind of empathy for those who are subject to it. I suspect that a large share of the Black Lives Matter criticism emanates from one of these two sources. (I don't have any reason to believe you fit into either of these categories.)
Last edited:
Let's start of by saying they absolutely have a good cause. In fact there are polls show that people are sympathetic to their cause but not their group. There are very real problems that need to be fixed. Deadly ones.
But they are very aggressive in tone and the average American often is directly inconvenienced by this. They block traffic, block store access, crash political rallies and shut down any voice but their own...
They have even targeted potential powerful allies in their cause. Such as Bernie Sanders. Now one can argue that "inconveniencing" the average American is a small price for the public to pay when people are dying. Fair enough. But it does their cause no favors. They should be pushing tactics that expand their supporting base. Once you have broad local bases of support you form a council and engage city and county governments. That is a much more effective way to create change than what they are doing.
For example. Change it from #BlackLivesMatter to #AllLivesMatter. It brings in more Latinos, whites and Asians and furthers the challenging of systemic racism that contribute to these police deaths that sparked this movement. Fliers full of info at colleges, fairs, malls... You will not achieve your goals by alienating people. Do a much better job engaging the media in a positive way. Control, to an extent, the tone of your coverage. Push for more positive pieces based off your improved tone and approach.
My comparison between the two groups was only to show that they both use tactics that turn people against them. Not in any attempt to link their goals, membership, worthiness of cause or anything else. On my phone. This will have to do.
Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
Rep accumulates just by making posts. I'm pretty sure that it takes a lot of neg rep to be as low as he is with as many posts as he's made.
SMH, sadly Stoked, this line of thinking is part of the problem. I know you're not doing it on purpose, but BLM has absolutely nothing to do with Latino, Asian, and White lives, at all.
"Average Americans" aka white people should not be telling black people how to run their movement and frame their message. They are not protesting on our terms, and to ask them to do so is disingenuous, belittling, and racist at worst. Again, I know you mean well, but I would encourage you to try see this issue through other lenses.
It will be interesting to see if this starts the conversation of protecting American's from State overreach. So many are concerned about Federal tyranny, what about State tyranny and it's oppression of the people's rights?