Forum Index > Stewardship > Malheur Occupiers acquitted
Previous :: Next Topic  
Author Message
Klapton
Member
Member


Joined: 21 Dec 2006
Posts: 933 | TRs

Klapton
Member
PostMon Nov 07, 2016 9:31 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
WANative wrote:
You can drink alcohol and not get drunk. People smoke weed to get high.

Laws are made against drugs that only get used in order for the person to alter their state of mind.

Are you comfortable with the idea of 4 year old sally and 6 year old Timmy playing in a house where there are bags of weed on the table with their single mother sitting on the couch sparking up a fat bong hit?

Better send a SWAT team there then.

Your caricature of recreational cannabis users is ridiculous and stupid.  While there may exist someone that irresponsible, there also exists a drunk who does the same.  Yet the vast majority of adults who use these substances are just that:  ADULTS.  They are not neglecting or endangering their children whatsoever.

To continue legal prohibition of these things is to condone VIOLENCE.  Both the violence of enforcement and the violence of criminal cartels that would not exist without prohibition.  This violence is FAR more dangerous to our children than someone smoking a little weed to help them fall asleep, or before they unwind watching a movie.

Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
joker
seeker



Joined: 12 Aug 2006
Posts: 7289 | TRs
Location: state of confusion
joker
seeker
PostMon Nov 07, 2016 9:50 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Yeah, what he said. I'd add that if WANative's logic were used, cigarettes and caffeinated coffee would be outlawed too (ever gone on a backpack with someone who is quitting either even after relatively light  use - if not, my advice is DON'T!!!).

Back to the  topic of this thread, it will be interesting to see how this influences the tactics of folks who have a big beef against the federal government. I guess the lesson is that if someone with a gun has broken into your office and taken a seat at your chair, just walk in and ask them to move so you can get your job done.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
WANative
Member
Member


Joined: 09 May 2016
Posts: 277 | TRs

WANative
Member
PostMon Nov 07, 2016 10:04 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Klapton wrote:
WANative wrote:
You can drink alcohol and not get drunk. People smoke weed to get high.

Laws are made against drugs that only get used in order for the person to alter their state of mind.

Are you comfortable with the idea of 4 year old sally and 6 year old Timmy playing in a house where there are bags of weed on the table with their single mother sitting on the couch sparking up a fat bong hit?

Better send a SWAT team there then.

Your caricature of recreational cannabis users is ridiculous and stupid.  While there may exist someone that irresponsible, there also exists a drunk who does the same.  Yet the vast majority of adults who use these substances are just that:  ADULTS.  They are not neglecting or endangering their children whatsoever.

To continue legal prohibition of these things is to condone VIOLENCE.  Both the violence of enforcement and the violence of criminal cartels that would not exist without prohibition.  This violence is FAR more dangerous to our children than someone smoking a little weed to help them fall asleep, or before they unwind watching a movie.

I'm for legalization. Let dopers be dopers and make some profit in the process. No big deal.

I'm against the idea that prohibition had anything to do with racism or hippies.  It's not hard to understand how parents using drugs in front of their kids might upset people and makes a good argument for prohibition.

http://www.king5.com/news/local/tacoma/spanaway-mom-injected-her-kids-with-heroin-charges-say/345960166

Quote:
TACOMA, Wash. – A Spanaway mother has been charged for injecting her children with heroin.

Child Protective Services removed three children, ages six, four, and two, from their parents Ashlee Rose Hutt, 24, and Mac McIver in November 2015.

Just another recreational user trying to unwind after a long hard day at work right? Or the pill popper at my old job who crashed his car with his 2 kids inside.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
WANative
Member
Member


Joined: 09 May 2016
Posts: 277 | TRs

WANative
Member
PostMon Nov 07, 2016 10:10 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
joker wrote:
Back to the  topic of this thread, it will be interesting to see how this influences the tactics of folks who have a big beef against the federal government. I guess the lesson is that if someone with a gun has broken into your office and taken a seat at your chair, just walk in and ask them to move so you can get your job done.

Just sit on their lap and get to work!

Federal land belongs to us all. It's public.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
RandyHiker
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 5451 | TRs
Location: Greenlake
RandyHiker
Snarky Member
PostMon Nov 07, 2016 12:13 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Ski wrote:
WAnative wrote:
Laws are made against drugs that only get used in order for the person to alter their state of mind.

errr... you mean like alcohol, right?

dizzy.gif

Randy, weed was outlawed in the late 1930s. if you've never seen it, I'd highly recommend watching "Reefer Madness". Steve mentions one of the primary motivating factors above, which is played up in the movie, that aspect of which had a significant effect on public opinion at the time.

The Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 didn't place the same level of criminal penalties against personal weed possession as did congresses act in 1971.

Reefer Madness was a propaganda film intended to discourage weed consumption.  I think it has little relation to facts.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Klapton
Member
Member


Joined: 21 Dec 2006
Posts: 933 | TRs

Klapton
Member
PostMon Nov 07, 2016 12:38 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
The "War on Drugs" as we know it today began in 1971 with the Controlled Substances Act.  The primary motivation for this came from Nixon who was mad as hell that the soldiers he sent to Vietnam were coming home stoners.

The level of funding and therefore violence increased dramatically under Reagan, and hasn't let up since.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 8676 | TRs
Location: tacoma
Ski
><((((°>
PostMon Nov 07, 2016 12:39 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
WAnative wrote:
I'm against the idea that prohibition had anything to do with racism or hippies.

Originally (in the late 1930s), the federal mandates enacted on pot had everything to do with racism. (see HERE )

As for the "hippies" part: Richard M. Nixon ran on a platform of "Law and Order" in the 1968 Presidential election. The 1971 laws had everything to do with "hippies" (and those who questioned government authority and the Vietnam War.)

RandyHiker wrote:
The Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 didn't place the same level of criminal penalties against personal weed possession as did congresses act in 1971.

Nobody said it did.

RandyHiker wrote:
Reefer Madness was a propaganda film intended to discourage weed consumption.  I think it has little relation to facts.

Nobody said it had any relation to facts. It did, however, sway public opinion at the time of its release.

--------------
"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. 
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
WANative
Member
Member


Joined: 09 May 2016
Posts: 277 | TRs

WANative
Member
PostMon Nov 07, 2016 3:15 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Finicum (the guy being shot and killed in the video I linked) started and ran a foster home for children on his ranch. The government paid the foster home 115k a year.

They pulled funding for the foster home as an act of revenge once they found out he was involved in the Bunker hill standoff.

He took over the refuge with others as an act of protest in regards to the abuse of the ranchers and the pulling of the funding for the foster home.

Then they shot and killed him.

Does this make you happy? That is the "right wing terrorists" you want the government to come down on with full force.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
trestle
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Aug 2008
Posts: 1958 | TRs
Location: the Oly Pen
trestle
Member
PostMon Nov 07, 2016 3:31 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Here's a pretty good reply:

Quote:
But it seems at least ironic and perhaps more than ironic that this paragon of getting the government off our backs and radical, near-absolute individualism supports himself and his wife off state subsidies.

Based on his ranch barely breaking even, the foster home was his primary source of income. So what? What's wrong with hypocrisy? Isn't that his right? Sure. But don't expect a pat on the back, which is what he was metaphorically seeking. The funding was pulled and the children removed after he was arraigned on felony charges related to the Nevada standoff.

It should be clear by now, to every citizen of this country, whether right or wrong, DO NOT THREATEN LAW ENFORCEMENT OR FEDERAL OFFICERS. Frankly, you shouldn't go around threatening anyone but if you must, I'd certainly recommend you avoid threatening law enforcement or federal officers.

Jail or dead, it's kind of like "fat and stupid".*



* No offense to fat people, it's a reference to a line in a movie.

--------------
"Life favors the prepared." - Edna Mode
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
RandyHiker
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 5451 | TRs
Location: Greenlake
RandyHiker
Snarky Member
PostMon Nov 07, 2016 3:37 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
WANative wrote:
Finicum (the guy being shot and killed in the video I linked) started and ran a foster home for children on his ranch. The government paid the foster home 115k a year.

They pulled funding for the foster home as an act of revenge once they found out he was involved in the Bunker hill standoff.

He took over the refuge with others as an act of protest in regards to the abuse of the ranchers and the pulling of the funding for the foster home.

Then they shot and killed him.

Does this make you happy? That is the "right wing terrorists" you want the government to come down on with full force.

Yeah and the fact that Finicum basically abandoned those foster kids to join the occupy effort had nothing to do with it.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/get-the-government-s-hands-off-my-foster-kid-subsidies

Quote:
Two points got my attention about this story.

First, having one parent away from the home for a significant period of time committing a number of high profile federal crimes would seem like at least a plausible reason to remove the children. This doesn't seem to occur to Finicum.

The second point comes further down in the article. From a mix of tabulations by Oregon Public Broadcasting and Finicum's own account, Finicum and his wife apparently get almost all or all of their income from being foster parents. His ranch in Chino Valley, Arizona is break even at best and appears to generate no income.

Quote:
Regardless, Finicum's claim that this is another example of the government persecution of him - removing foster children, who come with state subsidies which are his only source of income, because he has abandoned them to go commit crimes against the federal government in another state - just illustrates painfully and comically what a nonsense bubble these jokers live in.

WANative wrote:
Then they shot and killed him.

I've watched the video of his attempted arrest and shooting -- taken in context of the his statements in the days leading up to that event -- I classify the event as "suicide by cop"  -- Tragic, sad and regrettable certainly -- but hardly a case of police brutality.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
jinx'sboy
Member
Member


Joined: 30 Jul 2008
Posts: 424 | TRs
Location: on a great circle route
jinx'sboy
Member
PostTue Mar 07, 2017 10:23 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
According to High Country News.....
http://www.hcn.org/articles/latest-family-ordered-to-pay-half-a-million-for-unauthorized-grazing

Court judge scheduled to hear Bundy grazing case in NV, separate from the Malheur case, just found Wayne Hage's family guilty of not paying grazing fees and ordered them to pay $587,000.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
jinx'sboy
Member
Member


Joined: 30 Jul 2008
Posts: 424 | TRs
Location: on a great circle route
jinx'sboy
Member
PostSat Mar 11, 2017 12:29 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Although Bundy and the principals were acquitted, some others were found guilty of conspiracy on Friday:

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/jury-convicts-2-of-conspiracy-in-oregon-standoff-at-malheur-refuge/

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/mar/10/oregon-militia-standoff-two-convicted
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 10168 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
Member
PostMon Jan 08, 2018 12:49 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Bundy standoff case dismissed due to prosecutorial misbehavior. A sign rule of law is alive and well. Undoubtedly justified to haul them up on charges...completely unacceptable to have prosecutorial abuses of the system for the trial.

Quote:
A federal judge dismissed all charges against rancher Cliven Bundy, his two sons and another man on Monday.

U.S. District Judge Gloria Navarro cited "flagrant prosecutorial misconduct" in her decision to dismiss all charges against the Nevada rancher and three others.

Navarro on Dec. 20 declared a mistrial in the high-profile Bundy case. It was only the latest, stunning development in the saga of the Nevada rancher, and served as a repudiation of the federal government. Navarro accused prosecutors of willfully withholding evidence from Bundy’s lawyers, in violation of the federal Brady rule.


--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
RandyHiker
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 5451 | TRs
Location: Greenlake
RandyHiker
Snarky Member
PostMon Jan 08, 2018 2:25 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
It's good that any case with prosecutorial misconduct gets tossed out.   Sad that the prosecutor in this case didn't do a proper job and have justice served.

I hope that whatever chapter comes next in this sad little drama doesn't result in further violence.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
trestle
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Aug 2008
Posts: 1958 | TRs
Location: the Oly Pen
trestle
Member
PostMon Jan 08, 2018 3:24 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
As a taxpayer, it would be nice to get some clarification (without the glare and fanfare of the msm) on their grazing rights and what they're actually paying us for the right to graze their cattle on public land.

--------------
"Life favors the prepared." - Edna Mode
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
  Display:     All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Forum Index > Stewardship > Malheur Occupiers acquitted
  Happy Birthday obladi!
Jump to:   
Search this topic:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
   Use Disclaimer Powered by phpBB Privacy Policy