Terrorists Take Over Federal Building in Oregon

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
As usual you have no idea what you are talking about any lie about everything.

Nah, saying things you don't like is not the same as lying.

You're literally afraid of a group who's mission statement is, "We would like to not die, k? And be treated equally by police and the legal system in general."

Have you considered how silly that is? Afraid of people wanting to not be harassed or shot?

Funny you hate violence but you love illegal immigration.

I do like immigration, thought I think it should be legal. One is a lot different than the other. Violence, well, hurts people. Immigration is normally an economic boost to the area and helps bring other people up to our standard of living. That's not bad.

Here's the thing about the 'illegal' immigration problem- if it became legal, then... it's legal, and it's not a problem. If something can be made not-a-problem by signing some documents, then that's a much better solution than spending hundreds of millions in order to crush local economies by driving out the workforce.

You completely lied, or are just ignorant and have no idea what this story is about and why they are occupying this building. How about you do some research or read the thread before you just spit out random bullshit.

I just posted two links to sources with information.

Sorry Time, you being pissed about being wrong doesn't make me a liar.

You get caught lying pretty often- and by 'caught,' I mean 'third party evidence contradicts your claims.' I think you just like to call others liars so much because lying is your go-to.

Do you really think getting angry and yelling 'liar' a lot makes you less-wrong about things?

Um what are you even talking about! You dont even know what is going on and why they are occupying and you just made a bunch of stuff up.

Let me educate you.

They are occupying it cause of the arrests, jailing and re jailing of their family😂

Do you even know what the judge did or are you just trying to spin the story like you always do?

From the looks of everything you have posted you are literally clueless on what is going on and are just using this thread to get your smart ass remarks in.

In other words, she is just being herself and doing what comes naturally to her. 👆

Yea and usually when I make a mistake that I know of, I always correct myself.

Like I did, right here in the thread.

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=621445&pagenumber=7

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial

They are occupying it cause of the arrests, jailing and re jailing of their family😂

You do know that, one, this is over a hundred people, not an immediate family, the people in question have said they're willing to go back to jail, and the people in question who were arrested actually did what they were arrested for, right?

And the land thing is still part of the issue?

This is pretty standard Time stuff- someone says something you disagree with, you yell and call people liars and send angry PMs, often not realizing what the other person was saying, and you get caught as wrong.

Why do you throw a tantrum every time someone says something you don't like? It's like you don't want to learn anything or consider any point of view other than your own, just yell at people.

More smart ass remarks.

Just a reminder, what I actually said- The ranchers, who's complaints include land use (Note I did not say this is their sole reason), are actually getting a 93% discount, and several of them are lying about their military accomplishments.

All with direct sources and evidence.

And this is what Time is pissed and throwing a tantrum about this time. Because anyone saying anything bad about the people in question must be liars... even if they had proof and Time's huffy about it, again.

Originally posted by Star428
Tell that to the hundreds of innocent people who were slaughtered in Paris recently like lambs to the slaughter because they were all defenseless. Oh wait... you can't can you? They're all already dead.

So 130 equates to "hundreds"?

Or is this irrefutable proof that Christians like to lie & exaggerate the fact?

Originally posted by Q99
Just a reminder, what I actually said- The ranchers, who's complaints include land use (Note I did not say this is their sole reason), are actually getting a 93% discount, and several of them are lying about their military accomplishments.

All with direct sources and evidence.

And this is what Time is pissed and throwing a tantrum about this time. Because anyone saying anything bad about the people in question must be liars... even if they had proof and Time's huffy about it, again.

Why are you talking in third person, no one here gives to shits about your squabble with me, all you are doing is embarrassing yourself now by trying to get others to cheerlead for you. Havent you figured it it out that literally I am the only person that talks to you here?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Why are you talking in third person, no one here gives to shits about your squabble with me, all you are doing is embarrassing yourself now by trying to get others to cheerlead for you. Havent you figured it it out that literally I am the only person that talks to you here?

I don't think you know what third person is if you think Q was speaking in it.

Anyhow, didn't know this- http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/ammon-bundy-calling-recruits-join-oregon-takeover-article-1.2484410

Apparently the father/son duo who have inspired this whole thing in parts have reported to prison and do not endorse the whole thing.

Another link confirming- http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/01/04/rancher-family-reports-to-prison-does-not-endorse-oregon-siege.html

I'm just wondering if you view these people as terrorists what do you view the protestors around the U.S. that actually damage things?

I asked that as well as a few others.

The answer was either no answer or "I don't agree with that."

Typical double standard.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Why are you talking in third person, no one here gives to shits about your squabble with me, all you are doing is embarrassing yourself now by trying to get others to cheerlead for you.

I do wonder what's up with you at times.

I posted an article- which turned out to be correct- that had nothing to do with you. You flipped out and threw a tantrum, accused me of being a liar, and then when called on it, you say no-one cares about you me pointing out that you're flipping out.

Maybe you should try not blowing your lid to begin with? It's kinda sad you're trying to downplay things now when you're the one who can't go half a week without throwing hissy fits.

It'd probably be healthier if you didn't get angry when, gasp, I post something that disagrees with you.

Havent you figured it it out that literally I am the only person that talks to you here?

Maybe you don't pay attention to other people when they day.

I would be quite happy if you didn't insist on blowing up every time I post something. If it angers you so much, just ignore it.

Originally posted by Henry_Pym
I'm just wondering if you view these people as terrorists what do you view the protestors around the U.S. that actually damage things?

Well, these people are trying to change policy via threat of force. They've threatened to, literally, shoot people.

So, no, not everyone who damages things is a terrorist, but yes, these people meet the definition. That's just dictionary. Though considering their avoidance of actual targets, it is, granted, only in the 'technicality terrorist/wannabe terrorist' category at this point.

Now, on the matter of 'damage,' they're stated their intent to keep, permanently, a large build that isn't theirs, indefinitely.

So we're probably talking multi-million dollars in.... theft? Is it still theft if it's a building? Retrievable to be sure if they surrender since they took it rather than destroyed it, but quite large in scale.

The family who leads it has also racked up over a million dollars in fines *before* this.

Cost-wise, that outpaces most damage you'll see at a 'protest gone out of control.'

And most protests do not, y'know, threaten to shoot people who respond. Protests that openly state their intent to shoot people do also cross the line. Can't think of any offhand that have done so, but similar idea.

Typical double standard, do you have any honor?

How about Michael Browns dad telling people to burn it down and then people burned the city.

Looters and Violent protestors destroying public and private property=exercise against policy change.

Peaceful occupation of a park building in the middle of no where with no civilians around=terrorist.

The usual nonsense from you.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Typical double standard, do you have any honor?

Do you?

It's funny how you call 'typical double standard' before actually getting my stance.

How about Michael Browns dad telling people to burn it down and then people burned the city.

His stepdad, you mean?

That was out of line, and if he was the head of an organization, or giving actual orders, and not simply an individual speaking out of anger, yea, that's count.

As-is, he's guilty of incitement to violence- and a good example why that's bad.

None of which, of course, makes this group- who don't have the excuse of a dead relative, just a sense of entitlement over land they don't own and anger over people who burned stuff serving more time as per the law- any less guilty of what they do.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Looters and Violent protestors destroying public and private property=exercise against policy change.

Note, the wide majority of protests are peaceful. BLM has an actual organization and regularly conducts peaceful protests.

There is a difference between 'destructive incidents happen,' and 'group openly plans lethal levels of violence.'

Peaceful occupation of a park building in the middle of no where with no civilians around=terrorist.

Overlooking, of course, their stated intent to not be peaceful, and indeed, to shoot the rightful owners of the property they're on.

And 'occupation.' You say that as if it wasn't looting on a grand scale.

Usual Time double standard 😉

Oh just shut up. Your usual lies and tricks don't work on me so quit trying.

Originally posted by Q99
His stepdad, you mean?

That was out of line, and if he was the head of an organization, or giving actual orders, and not simply an individual speaking out of anger, yea, that's count.

As-is, he's guilty of incitement to violence- and a good example why that's bad.

He wasn't the head of an organization, but this was also a special circumstance. This wasn't just a random angry black guy...it was the guys step father. So I would argue that the parents of the slain child encouraging people to burn some shit down..would hold vastly more weight then a random person saying it. Hell I'd argue the leader of an organization saying it would carry less weight then the victims step father saying it.

Also keep in mind the memorial for Brown caught on fire and they literally went and looted a weave store in response...despite the fact that the friggin candles they'd put at the memorial could of blown over and started the fire(happened at a memorial in Chicago), but why wait for an explanation when there is stealing to do?

See this is what irks me when I bring up "oh they only do this when cops do shit" and people say "oh well they can't affect change as easily with gang bangers as they can cops". Except the problem is those people burning and stealing are not trying to change anything..they are trying to burn and steal. Thus the difficulty of going after non-cops is irrelevant to me. They aren't going after the cops when they loot and steal. They aren't doing that thinking it will spark any change. They were taking their anger and frustration out on the city. But only cops bring out that level of anger, countless innocent deaths do not.

one of which, of course, makes this group- who don't have the excuse of a dead relative, just a sense of entitlement over land they don't own and anger over people who burned stuff serving more time as per the law- any less guilty of what they do.

They have every right to at least be pissed over them trying to put them back in prison. I'm not saying they went about it the right way, but the government are basically acting like bullies now. It's like there is no "good" side in this situation. Each side has some sort of agenda and this isn't merely about federal law.

For me this entire situation just makes the government look bad. Just the fact that they didn't notice these people weren't given the proper sentence until recently makes it look like they have no real clue what they are doing.

Of course this is the same state that wants to use tax dollars to pay for the sex changes of 15 yr. olds so why am I surprised?