It's been on the top half of the front page of foxnews.com for a few days now.

People who b**** most about FoxNews never go to FoxNews.

It's been on the top half of the front page of foxnews.com for a few days now.

 

It's not up there at all!?!?!?!

 

Lead Story= Gun Control Fight (Obama Presses Ahead with Exec Action)

3 main pictures

1) Gitmo Bad Guys- Al Qaeda Followers among 17 being moved

2) Allies Abandonded- US Under pressure to intervene in Iran-Saudi fight

3) Craig Strickland Dead- Body of singer missing since 12/27 is found

 

In fact, I used "find on this page" 1 buried link that even has the word Oregon in there.

 

Drudge Report- Lead Story Bill Clinton "flustered"... Women on stage scowl, grimace, roll eyes while Clinton Speaks.

 

 

It's not up there at all!?!?!?!

 

Lead Story= Gun Control Fight (Obama Presses Ahead with Exec Action)

3 main pictures

1) Gitmo Bad Guys- Al Qaeda Followers among 17 being moved

2) Allies Abandonded- US Under pressure to intervene in Iran-Saudi fight

3) Craig Strickland Dead- Body of singer missing since 12/27 is found

 

In fact, I used "find on this page" 1 buried link that even has the word Oregon in there.

 

Drudge Report- Lead Story Bill Clinton "flustered"... Women on stage scowl, grimace, roll eyes while Clinton Speaks.

it's been moved to the US tab. front and center there. One click and there it was, no idea why you couldn't find it. Front page rotates. Nothing new has happened, so off the man page it goes.

http://www.foxnews.com/us.html?intcmp=hpnav

Edited January 4, 201610 yr by Alpha Dog

Blah blah blah Fox News, who cares which outlets are covering this more? Fox New is covering it, I've seen it. CNN and everyone else is too. I really don't think this matters.

 

What matters is how to handle the sedition. I think the Feds are right to wait it out a bit, then go in carefully to negotiate these guys out. They're scum who should be federally prosecuted, but that doesn't mean you want a gunfight. Now, if this drags on for weeks or months, and all peaceful efforts fail, at some point, you need to go in there and get them out. Preferably you use tear gas or something and do an HRT-style thing as opposed to a military action. But I sure as heck wouldn't want to do anything that puts federal officers or soldiers in danger, so if it comes to that, these idiots in the refuge can go screw themselves. I have little sympathy for the outcome for them.

 

The worst part of this is, the locals don't want them there, nor does the state, nor do the people they are supposedly acting on behalf of. They aren't patriots, they're thugs.

 

 

 

Blah blah blah Fox News, who cares which outlets are covering this more? Fox New is covering it, I've seen it. CNN and everyone else is too. I really don't think this matters.

 

What matters is how to handle the sedition. I think the Feds are right to wait it out a bit, then go in carefully to negotiate these guys out. They're scum who should be federally prosecuted, but that doesn't mean you want a gunfight. Now, if this drags on for weeks or months, and all peaceful efforts fail, at some point, you need to go in there and get them out. Preferably you use tear gas or something and do an HRT-style thing as opposed to a military action. But I sure as heck wouldn't want to do anything that puts federal officers or soldiers in danger, so if it comes to that, these idiots in the refuge can go screw themselves. I have little sympathy for the outcome for them.

 

The worst part of this is, the locals don't want them there, nor does the state, nor do the people they are supposedly acting on behalf of. They aren't patriots, they're thugs.

Pretty much this.

The Audobon Society of Portland has a statement out on the occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge and its ecological importance.

 

http://audubonportland.org/news/audubon-so...wildlife-refuge

The worst part of this is, the locals don't want them there, nor does the state, nor do the people they are supposedly acting on behalf of. They aren't patriots, they're thugs.

But dee turk err jarbs!

twitter trolling these guys after they asked for snacks is just great

 

#yeehawd

But dee turk err jarbs!

For the most part, changes in the ranching and timber industries took the local jobs. Now, part of that is government regulation - that is a valid point. But here's the thing - the regulations that contributed to making it harder for timber and ranching jobs to stay as strong were not the designation of a wilderness area. In fact the opposite is true - all else equal, having slightly less land in circulation (in a state where there is still a metric ton of it everywhere open to grazing) would in fact only increase value from their operations as it removes some competition.

 

There are valid concerns about the effect of federal land policy in the west having negative consequences for some industries. That's not some made up thing. but these guys have a really warped sense of how it works, and the locals know that which is why they have no interest in these actions.

 

Blah blah blah Fox News, who cares which outlets are covering this more? Fox New is covering it, I've seen it. CNN and everyone else is too. I really don't think this matters.

 

What matters is how to handle the sedition. I think the Feds are right to wait it out a bit, then go in carefully to negotiate these guys out. They're scum who should be federally prosecuted, but that doesn't mean you want a gunfight. Now, if this drags on for weeks or months, and all peaceful efforts fail, at some point, you need to go in there and get them out. Preferably you use tear gas or something and do an HRT-style thing as opposed to a military action. But I sure as heck wouldn't want to do anything that puts federal officers or soldiers in danger, so if it comes to that, these idiots in the refuge can go screw themselves. I have little sympathy for the outcome for them.

 

The worst part of this is, the locals don't want them there, nor does the state, nor do the people they are supposedly acting on behalf of. They aren't patriots, they're thugs.

 

Here's what I think will happen. These dudes were so in their echo chamber of self-righteousness and thought they'd see this swell of support ala Bundy ranch. It's clearly not happening. I think soon they panic and try to work their best deal for jail time.

 

As a second part, I think Obama should consider using the pardon on the actual ranchers, considering the mandatory minimum looks ridiculous and they have already served time.

I dunno, those ranchers are serial offenders who endangered the lives of volunteer firefighters after being explicitly told not to set fires because there were firefighters in the area. Mandatory minimums are dumb in general, but having a good ol' boy judge blatantly ignore the law isn't exactly a great solution either.

 

So I read through the original indictment. Granted it's the prosecution's side of the story, but they did a lot more than just set two fires that accidentally encroached on BLM land. They were warned as far back as 1999 that they should have a proscribed burn plan in place with the BLM and that if they didn't, any future fires that encroached on BLM land would be considered trespass. They never put a plan in place, they continued to set fires that were either on BLM property or spread to it, some of their fires spread to neighboring private land, and they actively obstructed and endangered BLM firefighters. If even half of the quotes in the indictment are true, these guys deserve every bit of five years.

 

eta: they also threatened firefighters to "make this go away" or they'd claim that the firefighters had really started all of the fires.

 

edit2: they had run-ins with the law and obstructing federal workers going back over two decades. http://www.hcn.org/issues/20/582

Edited January 5, 201610 yr by StrangeSox

Antigovernment Militia Groups Grew by More than One-Third in Last Year

 

I dunno, those ranchers are serial offenders who endangered the lives of volunteer firefighters after being explicitly told not to set fires because there were firefighters in the area. Mandatory minimums are dumb in general, but having a good ol' boy judge blatantly ignore the law isn't exactly a great solution either.

 

So I read through the original indictment. Granted it's the prosecution's side of the story, but they did a lot more than just set two fires that accidentally encroached on BLM land. They were warned as far back as 1999 that they should have a proscribed burn plan in place with the BLM and that if they didn't, any future fires that encroached on BLM land would be considered trespass. They never put a plan in place, they continued to set fires that were either on BLM property or spread to it, some of their fires spread to neighboring private land, and they actively obstructed and endangered BLM firefighters. If even half of the quotes in the indictment are true, these guys deserve every bit of five years.

 

eta: they also threatened firefighters to "make this go away" or they'd claim that the firefighters had really started all of the fires.

 

edit2: they had run-ins with the law and obstructing federal workers going back over two decades. http://www.hcn.org/issues/20/582

 

Yeah, if I had seen that indictment, I'd expect 1=2 years of jail time and penalties for all damage to property.

What about for threatening firefighters and seemingly intentionally endangering their lives?

 

They've also been accused of child abuse by their nephew:

 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016...hild-abuse.html

You are right, they should go to jail for life. Congratulations, you are now a tough on crime democrat that saved our cities.

That was a pretty terrible post bmags for essentially disagreeing on a 2 or 5 year sentence.

If you had a firefighter in your family that position might magically change.

Militia clowns were saying yesterday that they'd leave if the local community wanted them to leave. I thought that it was a way for them to try to save face after their bluster about "staying for months" and "please send snacks" after the local sheriff and community made it abundantly clear that they want nothing to do with these jokers. But now they've shifted to demanding the transfer of public land to loggers and ranchers.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/no-hurry-defense-ref...50209.html?nf=1

 

As long as these guys actually get arrested at the end of all of this (unlike the Bundy standoff which resulted in nothing despite armed resistance to federal law enforcement efforts), the feds really should just wait these guys out.

If you had a firefighter in your family that position might magically change.

 

Oh, is that your justice standard? Should we allow family members to set all punishments now?

That was a pretty terrible post bmags for essentially disagreeing on a 2 or 5 year sentence.

 

You can't be against mandatory minimums and suddenly go to bat for them when its a constituency you don't like, that is literally why mandatory minimums exist and are so hard to get rid of. Looking at sentences for wild firefighters that set fires for work and caused significantly more damage their sentences were higher but time served appears to be marginal. Penalties were huge for damage.

 

 

To be fair I guess, they were only convicted of a couple of the Section 844 arson counts and not the conspiracy counts, so absent the mandatory minimums 1-2 years for arson doesn't seem unreasonable. But these two guys are not exactly sympathetic characters and the actual case is not as odd as it may appear on the surface.

You can't be against mandatory minimums and suddenly go to bat for them when its a constituency you don't like, that is literally why mandatory minimums exist and are so hard to get rid of. Looking at sentences for wild firefighters that set fires for work and caused significantly more damage their sentences were higher but time served appears to be marginal. Penalties were huge for damage.

 

I can be against the concept of mandatory minimums and still think that in specific Case X, the mandatory minimum was still actually a fair sentence that should have been imposed regardless of the existence of a mandatory minimum. How you go from "I think five years is actually a decent sentence for what they did and given how s***ty they've been in the past" to "OMG LIFE SENTENCE WAY TO GO 'TOUGH ON CRIME' DEMOCRAT!" is still a mystery.

Yeah I don't know what else to say except b****ing about how low a punishment a judge gave in a case and going to bat for the mandatory minimum is literally the argument that makes mandatory minimum.

Yeah I don't know what else to say except b****ing about how low a punishment a judge gave in a case and going to bat for the mandatory minimum is literally the argument that makes mandatory minimum.

Nah, because I can simultaneously oppose mandatory minimums while still disagreeing with specific sentences in specific cases. I would not have cared much (or known!) if they had only received their original sentences, but I also don't think five years is out of line given their history of not caring about damaging private and public property and endangering lives. Nothing about thinking a specific sentence was too light necessarily implies support for universal mandatory minimums.

 

Judicial discretion means that sometimes you'd disagree with what judges decide, and that's okay! I can be annoyed by that "affluenza" judge in Texas while recognizing that, in the aggregate, judicial discretion in sentencing is much, much better than mandatory minimums, three-strike laws etc.