Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Nice we finally get to the crux of your argument. And it's wrong of course.You support armed insurrections capturing federal property and endangering the lives of law enforcement. You are a terrorist.Your question had zero relevance to the topic of the thread terrorist.Thanks for the concession terrorist.
What, I'm not the one that refused to answer a simple question and ran like a little girl.
Right, except that is the very clause they cited claiming a government overreach, a point where they are correct. But no, no relevance at all, damn you're ignorant.
I support the Constitution, those lands are public lands and those folks there have just as much claim to it as you. The feds have no constitutional clam to it at all, which I've already proved. But hey, if it makes you feel like a big man feel free to call me what ever you want, it won't make your dick or balls any bigger though, sorry.
Stereotypes aren't true. LOLI don't know why, but this pin I found on Pinterest reminds me of this threads topic:
You support armed insurrections capturing federal property and endangering the lives of law enforcement. You are a terrorist.Your question had zero relevance to the topic of the thread terrorist.Thanks for the concession terrorist.
What, I'm not the one that refused to answer a simple question and ran like a little girl.
Right, except that is the very clause they cited claiming a government overreach, a point where they are correct. But no, no relevance at all, damn you're ignorant.
I support the Constitution, those lands are public lands and those folks there have just as much claim to it as you. The feds have no constitutional clam to it at all, which I've already proved. But hey, if it makes you feel like a big man feel free to call me what ever you want, it won't make your dick or balls any bigger though, sorry.
Nice we finally get to the crux of your argument. And it's wrong of course.You support armed insurrections capturing federal property and endangering the lives of law enforcement. You are a terrorist.Your question had zero relevance to the topic of the thread terrorist.What, I'm not the one that refused to answer a simple question and ran like a little girl.
Right, except that is the very clause they cited claiming a government overreach, a point where they are correct. But no, no relevance at all, damn you're ignorant.
I support the Constitution, those lands are public lands and those folks there have just as much claim to it as you. The feds have no constitutional clam to it at all, which I've already proved. But hey, if it makes you feel like a big man feel free to call me what ever you want, it won't make your dick or balls any bigger though, sorry.
But this thread isn't about your argument. It's about the terrorist activities these lunatics are engaging in. And it's no wonder a yeehawd sympathizer such as yourself supports them.
I don't graze "my" cattle on public. Always kept em on the farm.We'd be pissed if some stupid rednecks burned our woods down.Dawwmm, Lon Horiuchi is now posting on USMBWe have state land all around my community. We love our state and federal lands and the last thing we want is private citizens destroying that land. You should be shotThe protest might be legit, but grabbing federal property and not releasing it when demanded to should be considered armed robbery. They are armed. They robbed the property and are holding it hostage.
How can their protest be legit when the reason for it in the first place (the jailing of the Hammonds), don't want them there? Hammond has made sure to make it crystal clear that they don't approve of what Bundy and his ilk are doing.
Neither do the locals.
No, they havent. Everybody said the same shit after the Roseburg shooting...The locals definitely support it. But they aren't going to publicly announce it, they aren't stupid.
And don't cry if you can't graze your cattle on the peoples land. It's protected
It's protected???? LOLWe'd be pissed if some stupid rednecks burned our woods down.Dawwmm, Lon Horiuchi is now posting on USMBWe have state land all around my community. We love our state and federal lands and the last thing we want is private citizens destroying that land. You should be shotThe protest might be legit, but grabbing federal property and not releasing it when demanded to should be considered armed robbery. They are armed. They robbed the property and are holding it hostage.
How can their protest be legit when the reason for it in the first place (the jailing of the Hammonds), don't want them there? Hammond has made sure to make it crystal clear that they don't approve of what Bundy and his ilk are doing.
Neither do the locals.
No, they havent. Everybody said the same shit after the Roseburg shooting...The locals definitely support it. But they aren't going to publicly announce it, they aren't stupid.
And don't cry if you can't graze your cattle on the peoples land. It's protected
Nice we finally get to the crux of your argument. And it's wrong of course.You support armed insurrections capturing federal property and endangering the lives of law enforcement. You are a terrorist.Your question had zero relevance to the topic of the thread terrorist.
Right, except that is the very clause they cited claiming a government overreach, a point where they are correct. But no, no relevance at all, damn you're ignorant.
I support the Constitution, those lands are public lands and those folks there have just as much claim to it as you. The feds have no constitutional clam to it at all, which I've already proved. But hey, if it makes you feel like a big man feel free to call me what ever you want, it won't make your dick or balls any bigger though, sorry.
But this thread isn't about your argument. It's about the terrorist activities these lunatics are engaging in. And it's no wonder a yeehawd sympathizer such as yourself supports them.
How about you provide a link proving me wrong, and I don't mean some federal court expanding federal authority beyond the Constitution. Those rulings are no more valid than the feds claim to the land. I gave you the verbiage of the Constitution that clearly states what land and for what purposes the congress may exercise constitutional authority and a wildlife refuge ain't one of them. You can't prove otherwise without ignoring the Constitution.
You support armed insurrections capturing federal property and endangering the lives of law enforcement. You are a terrorist.Your question had zero relevance to the topic of the thread terrorist.What, I'm not the one that refused to answer a simple question and ran like a little girl.
Right, except that is the very clause they cited claiming a government overreach, a point where they are correct. But no, no relevance at all, damn you're ignorant.
I support the Constitution, those lands are public lands and those folks there have just as much claim to it as you. The feds have no constitutional clam to it at all, which I've already proved. But hey, if it makes you feel like a big man feel free to call me what ever you want, it won't make your dick or balls any bigger though, sorry.
Except that the FEDs do have a claim to it, they always have, they don't HAVE to sell it to you or the public and just because it's owned by them doesn't mean you have FREE or UNRESTRICTED access as if you're the owner of it.
You support armed insurrections capturing federal property and endangering the lives of law enforcement. You are a terrorist.Your question had zero relevance to the topic of the thread terrorist.
Right, except that is the very clause they cited claiming a government overreach, a point where they are correct. But no, no relevance at all, damn you're ignorant.
I support the Constitution, those lands are public lands and those folks there have just as much claim to it as you. The feds have no constitutional clam to it at all, which I've already proved. But hey, if it makes you feel like a big man feel free to call me what ever you want, it won't make your dick or balls any bigger though, sorry.
Except that the FEDs do have a claim to it, they always have, they don't HAVE to sell it to you or the public and just because it's owned by them doesn't mean you have FREE or UNRESTRICTED access as if you're the owner of it.
Show me in the Constitution where the feds have a claim to it or have the constitutional authority to own it.
Nice we finally get to the crux of your argument. And it's wrong of course.You support armed insurrections capturing federal property and endangering the lives of law enforcement. You are a terrorist.Right, except that is the very clause they cited claiming a government overreach, a point where they are correct. But no, no relevance at all, damn you're ignorant.
I support the Constitution, those lands are public lands and those folks there have just as much claim to it as you. The feds have no constitutional clam to it at all, which I've already proved. But hey, if it makes you feel like a big man feel free to call me what ever you want, it won't make your dick or balls any bigger though, sorry.
But this thread isn't about your argument. It's about the terrorist activities these lunatics are engaging in. And it's no wonder a yeehawd sympathizer such as yourself supports them.
How about you provide a link proving me wrong, and I don't mean some federal court expanding federal authority beyond the Constitution. Those rulings are no more valid than the feds claim to the land. I gave you the verbiage of the Constitution that clearly states what land and for what purposes the congress may exercise constitutional authority and a wildlife refuge ain't one of them. You can't prove otherwise without ignoring the Constitution.
How about the fact that the Federal Claim to Fort Sumter was based on the legality of whether or not federal lands belonged to state lands if states sold the land to the federal government.
So historically, the Federal Government has a right to all territorial lands, and either grants them to a state when the state is created, or holds it.
Just because the US generally had a policy of selling lands cheaply doesn't mean that was some "legal requirement".
Nice we finally get to the crux of your argument. And it's wrong of course.You support armed insurrections capturing federal property and endangering the lives of law enforcement. You are a terrorist.
I support the Constitution, those lands are public lands and those folks there have just as much claim to it as you. The feds have no constitutional clam to it at all, which I've already proved. But hey, if it makes you feel like a big man feel free to call me what ever you want, it won't make your dick or balls any bigger though, sorry.
But this thread isn't about your argument. It's about the terrorist activities these lunatics are engaging in. And it's no wonder a yeehawd sympathizer such as yourself supports them.
How about you provide a link proving me wrong, and I don't mean some federal court expanding federal authority beyond the Constitution. Those rulings are no more valid than the feds claim to the land. I gave you the verbiage of the Constitution that clearly states what land and for what purposes the congress may exercise constitutional authority and a wildlife refuge ain't one of them. You can't prove otherwise without ignoring the Constitution.
How about the fact that the Federal Claim to Fort Sumter was based on the legality of whether or not federal lands belonged to state lands if states sold the land to the federal government.
So historically, the Federal Government has a right to all territorial lands, and either grants them to a state when the state is created, or holds it.
Just because the US generally had a policy of selling lands cheaply doesn't mean that was some "legal requirement".
My point is the feds have no constitutional authority to own the land in Oregon or exercise legislative control over it. And unless you can show an amendment abolishing Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17, there's no way you can prove me wrong.
Here ya goWhat the fuck are you talking about? You don't like what happened to the Weavers, take it up with Bush the Elder.ya tell that to the Weavers dog that got shot, or the weaver son that was shot in the back by an adult fbi agent. Or tell it to Weavers wife that got her brains blown out while holding a baby.RW's want a revolution, but they aren't willing to pay the price it takes to get one and WIN one.
Typical RW's. All mouth no guts.
LOL,
Do you know how close this ranch is to the Weaver compound
Wow. You just don't get it...Nice we finally get to the crux of your argument. And it's wrong of course.You support armed insurrections capturing federal property and endangering the lives of law enforcement. You are a terrorist.Your question had zero relevance to the topic of the thread terrorist.
Right, except that is the very clause they cited claiming a government overreach, a point where they are correct. But no, no relevance at all, damn you're ignorant.
I support the Constitution, those lands are public lands and those folks there have just as much claim to it as you. The feds have no constitutional clam to it at all, which I've already proved. But hey, if it makes you feel like a big man feel free to call me what ever you want, it won't make your dick or balls any bigger though, sorry.
But this thread isn't about your argument. It's about the terrorist activities these lunatics are engaging in. And it's no wonder a yeehawd sympathizer such as yourself supports them.
How about you provide a link proving me wrong, and I don't mean some federal court expanding federal authority beyond the Constitution. Those rulings are no more valid than the feds claim to the land. I gave you the verbiage of the Constitution that clearly states what land and for what purposes the congress may exercise constitutional authority and a wildlife refuge ain't one of them. You can't prove otherwise without ignoring the Constitution.
You support armed insurrections capturing federal property and endangering the lives of law enforcement. You are a terrorist.Right, except that is the very clause they cited claiming a government overreach, a point where they are correct. But no, no relevance at all, damn you're ignorant.
I support the Constitution, those lands are public lands and those folks there have just as much claim to it as you. The feds have no constitutional clam to it at all, which I've already proved. But hey, if it makes you feel like a big man feel free to call me what ever you want, it won't make your dick or balls any bigger though, sorry.
Except that the FEDs do have a claim to it, they always have, they don't HAVE to sell it to you or the public and just because it's owned by them doesn't mean you have FREE or UNRESTRICTED access as if you're the owner of it.
Show me in the Constitution where the feds have a claim to it or have the constitutional authority to own it.
They own it, does the Constitution forbid the Federal Government from owning land like any other corporate entity? How does a state own its land? How do people own land not constitutionally provided to them? There's nothing in the constitution about land ownership laws.
Furthermore the Federal Government acts as Sovereign and as Sovereign they have right to tax the land, which is why people who own their land still have to pay land taxes to states or the Federal government.
This is old old law, from medieval England, it is the same reason that codified in the Constitution the Sovereign (Feds) can decide whether or not you can sue them.
Nice we finally get to the crux of your argument. And it's wrong of course.I support the Constitution, those lands are public lands and those folks there have just as much claim to it as you. The feds have no constitutional clam to it at all, which I've already proved. But hey, if it makes you feel like a big man feel free to call me what ever you want, it won't make your dick or balls any bigger though, sorry.
But this thread isn't about your argument. It's about the terrorist activities these lunatics are engaging in. And it's no wonder a yeehawd sympathizer such as yourself supports them.
How about you provide a link proving me wrong, and I don't mean some federal court expanding federal authority beyond the Constitution. Those rulings are no more valid than the feds claim to the land. I gave you the verbiage of the Constitution that clearly states what land and for what purposes the congress may exercise constitutional authority and a wildlife refuge ain't one of them. You can't prove otherwise without ignoring the Constitution.
How about the fact that the Federal Claim to Fort Sumter was based on the legality of whether or not federal lands belonged to state lands if states sold the land to the federal government.
So historically, the Federal Government has a right to all territorial lands, and either grants them to a state when the state is created, or holds it.
Just because the US generally had a policy of selling lands cheaply doesn't mean that was some "legal requirement".
My point is the feds have no constitutional authority to own the land in Oregon or exercise legislative control over it. And unless you can show an amendment abolishing Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17, there's no way you can prove me wrong.
Why not? By right of conquest (which is a maritime/international law dating back at least to the 1500s) the Federal Government owned all the land (as sovereign) of the territory now the state of Oregon.
How by becoming a State do you argue that the Federal Government loses right to that land?
The only states that have original claims to land are the original 13 colonies, and only then because the Sovereign who granted them charters to the land was unceremoniously and for no real apparent reason, overthrown.
Nice we finally get to the crux of your argument. And it's wrong of course.
But this thread isn't about your argument. It's about the terrorist activities these lunatics are engaging in. And it's no wonder a yeehawd sympathizer such as yourself supports them.
How about you provide a link proving me wrong, and I don't mean some federal court expanding federal authority beyond the Constitution. Those rulings are no more valid than the feds claim to the land. I gave you the verbiage of the Constitution that clearly states what land and for what purposes the congress may exercise constitutional authority and a wildlife refuge ain't one of them. You can't prove otherwise without ignoring the Constitution.
How about the fact that the Federal Claim to Fort Sumter was based on the legality of whether or not federal lands belonged to state lands if states sold the land to the federal government.
So historically, the Federal Government has a right to all territorial lands, and either grants them to a state when the state is created, or holds it.
Just because the US generally had a policy of selling lands cheaply doesn't mean that was some "legal requirement".
My point is the feds have no constitutional authority to own the land in Oregon or exercise legislative control over it. And unless you can show an amendment abolishing Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17, there's no way you can prove me wrong.
Why not? By right of conquest (which is a maritime/international law dating back at least to the 1500s) the Federal Government owned all the land (as sovereign) of the territory now the state of Oregon.
How by becoming a State do you argue that the Federal Government loses right to that land?
The only states that have original claims to land are the original 13 colonies, and only then because the Sovereign who granted them charters to the land was unceremoniously and for no real apparent reason, overthrown.
Are you really that dense, once the feds accepted them as a State they have every right of every other State, no exceptions.
Cry me a river...That good ole "liberal media"
If you depend on the corporate media for your news, you may not have heard that 150 gun-toting militia are claiming U.S. government property for themselves. Social media users observing the media’s response to the armed takeover of a federal building by right-wing militia over the weekend are pointing out obvious double standards in how the media is treating white, right-wing militia members compared to black protesters.
Floyd@FloydXXI
Men with REAL weapons are being negotiated with, while #TamirRice, a young boy with a fake gun was shot right away...? #OregonUnderAttack
Hey @ABC I fixed that typo for you #OregonStandoff #OregonUnderAttack
How @AP covers the armed takeover of a federal building by white militia members
Glenda TheGoodBitch @jstcallmesweet
So what qualifies you as a "militia"? Cause last time I checked 150 men with semi automatic weapons in my hood is a gang #OregonUnderAttack
D.B.Anderson @DBAnderson1
I demand to see 24 hour/7 day coverage of #OregonUnderAttack on @CNN. Wolf Blitzer needs to use the word "thugs" & "terrorists" repeatedly
You support armed insurrections capturing federal property and endangering the lives of law enforcement. You are a terrorist.
I support the Constitution, those lands are public lands and those folks there have just as much claim to it as you. The feds have no constitutional clam to it at all, which I've already proved. But hey, if it makes you feel like a big man feel free to call me what ever you want, it won't make your dick or balls any bigger though, sorry.
Except that the FEDs do have a claim to it, they always have, they don't HAVE to sell it to you or the public and just because it's owned by them doesn't mean you have FREE or UNRESTRICTED access as if you're the owner of it.
Show me in the Constitution where the feds have a claim to it or have the constitutional authority to own it.
They own it, does the Constitution forbid the Federal Government from owning land like any other corporate entity? How does a state own its land? How do people own land not constitutionally provided to them? There's nothing in the constitution about land ownership laws.
Furthermore the Federal Government acts as Sovereign and as Sovereign they have right to tax the land, which is why people who own their land still have to pay land taxes to states or the Federal government.
This is old old law, from medieval England, it is the same reason that codified in the Constitution the Sovereign (Feds) can decide whether or not you can sue them.
Sorry hero, the feds have no constitutional authority to tax private land, all land titles are maintained by the States or the counties where the land is. Also the feds are only sovereign in the powers granted to them by the Constitution, the States and the people are sovereign in the other matters. The feds are not all powerful, the way you regressives want them to be.
Wow. You just don't get it...Nice we finally get to the crux of your argument. And it's wrong of course.You support armed insurrections capturing federal property and endangering the lives of law enforcement. You are a terrorist.Right, except that is the very clause they cited claiming a government overreach, a point where they are correct. But no, no relevance at all, damn you're ignorant.
I support the Constitution, those lands are public lands and those folks there have just as much claim to it as you. The feds have no constitutional clam to it at all, which I've already proved. But hey, if it makes you feel like a big man feel free to call me what ever you want, it won't make your dick or balls any bigger though, sorry.
But this thread isn't about your argument. It's about the terrorist activities these lunatics are engaging in. And it's no wonder a yeehawd sympathizer such as yourself supports them.
How about you provide a link proving me wrong, and I don't mean some federal court expanding federal authority beyond the Constitution. Those rulings are no more valid than the feds claim to the land. I gave you the verbiage of the Constitution that clearly states what land and for what purposes the congress may exercise constitutional authority and a wildlife refuge ain't one of them. You can't prove otherwise without ignoring the Constitution.
Maybe that's how terrorists are born. Some OKTexas-type person latches on to a group of nutjobs playing pretend against an evil empire; like the USA, which OKTexas hates so badly...
Next thing you know he's engaging in religious Yeehawd. So unfortunate.
How about you provide a link proving me wrong, and I don't mean some federal court expanding federal authority beyond the Constitution. Those rulings are no more valid than the feds claim to the land. I gave you the verbiage of the Constitution that clearly states what land and for what purposes the congress may exercise constitutional authority and a wildlife refuge ain't one of them. You can't prove otherwise without ignoring the Constitution.
How about the fact that the Federal Claim to Fort Sumter was based on the legality of whether or not federal lands belonged to state lands if states sold the land to the federal government.
So historically, the Federal Government has a right to all territorial lands, and either grants them to a state when the state is created, or holds it.
Just because the US generally had a policy of selling lands cheaply doesn't mean that was some "legal requirement".
My point is the feds have no constitutional authority to own the land in Oregon or exercise legislative control over it. And unless you can show an amendment abolishing Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17, there's no way you can prove me wrong.
Why not? By right of conquest (which is a maritime/international law dating back at least to the 1500s) the Federal Government owned all the land (as sovereign) of the territory now the state of Oregon.
How by becoming a State do you argue that the Federal Government loses right to that land?
The only states that have original claims to land are the original 13 colonies, and only then because the Sovereign who granted them charters to the land was unceremoniously and for no real apparent reason, overthrown.
Are you really that dense, once the feds accepted them as a State they have every right of every other State, no exceptions.
The states don't have any right to land, please point out THAT in the Constitution.
What you are talking about here are "land laws and customs", not constitutional arrangements.
There's nothing in the Constitution that says "a State shall be sovereign and own all the land in its territory".
