Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
OverSword

Are the Bundy crowd terrorist's or protesters

1,069 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Gromdor
37 minutes ago, Ellapennella said:

well yes, and, I was also  inquiring something that I've heard and that I read regarding China and the Reid's had a deal going on...sort of like it was a land grab. I don't think it's far fetched to be true. Look at all the pay for play deals that go on.

ETA - nvm..you were talking about Rashore.. Gromdor never replied back to my question...my misunderstanding of your post...

 

I can't beat information that you heard that you read.  I'll just have to take it as fact....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
OverSword
16 minutes ago, Thanato said:

Why are they allowed to take over a federal building and property with Force and nothing can happen. But when First Nations protestors are trying to protect thier water supply and thier sacred lands the police use heavy ha des tactics.

I'm not claiming to have that information, Rashore gave the most probably explanation.  The oil pipeline protests are taking place on private not public property.

Edited by OverSword

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ellapenella
4 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

I can't beat information that you heard that you read.  I'll just have to take it as fact....

that what? lol that I heard that i read...you read something wrong.I didn't say that in the post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats
3 hours ago, OverSword said:

I'm not claiming to have that information, Rashore gave the most probably explanation.  The oil pipeline protests are taking place on private not public property.

Yes, THEIR private land.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Buzz_Light_Year
21 minutes ago, Lord Fedorable said:

Yes, THEIR private land.

Unfortunately the U.S. has this little thing called Eminent Domain that is being abused for corporate needs and not government needs as it was first intended. So until someone successfully takes the case to the SCOTUS the land the pipeline is on isn't theirs by law (or should I say ruling).

Edited by Buzz_Light_Year

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatetopa
6 hours ago, Buzz_Light_Year said:

Unfortunately the U.S. has this little thing called Eminent Domain that is being abused for corporate needs and not government needs as it was first intended. So until someone successfully takes the case to the SCOTUS the land the pipeline is on isn't theirs by law (or should I say ruling).

Anyone care to speculate what would happen if the government and a pipeline company tried eminent domain on Cliven Bundy;s ranch?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
17 hours ago, Thanato said:

Why are they allowed to take over a federal building and property with Force and nothing can happen. But when First Nations protestors are trying to protect thier water supply and thier sacred lands the police use heavy ha des tactics.

They moved into a empty structure at first and then moved into the office when the employees didn't stay for their work. They didn't actually threaten anyone, but did have guns. They occupied by way of coming at night, and no one was chased off as far as I know. There wasn't so much as a night security guard.

Clearly, the facts were such that even when defending themselves in court, they won their case.

Edited by DieChecker
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sakari
5 hours ago, DieChecker said:

 

Clearly, the facts were such that even when defending themselves in court, they won their case.

 

I have noted this case, in the event I am ever homeless.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats
23 hours ago, Buzz_Light_Year said:

Unfortunately the U.S. has this little thing called Eminent Domain that is being abused for corporate needs and not government needs as it was first intended. So until someone successfully takes the case to the SCOTUS the land the pipeline is on isn't theirs by law (or should I say ruling).

Which, as far as I k ow hasn't been invoked in this case, and if it has does it overrule a formal Treaty (as opposed to a civil contract, which is what householders have with the government).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Buzz_Light_Year
21 minutes ago, Lord Fedorable said:

Which, as far as I k ow hasn't been invoked in this case, and if it has does it overrule a formal Treaty (as opposed to a civil contract, which is what householders have with the government).

Yeah the pipeline was granted eminent domain.

Iowa farmers sue to block use of eminent domain for Bakken pipeline

I forgot about the Supreme Court case that ruled it was permissible for the government to take property from one private owner and give it to another in order to promote economic development. I think this needs to be reversed. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker

I've heard of cases where urban property was grabbed by eminent domain and then sold to developers. Seems a horrible thing to do to some poor farmer who's land ajoins a city boundary, but it seems to happen pretty often.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2014/03/12/the-devastation-caused-eminent-domain-abuse/yWsy0MNEZ91TM94PYQIh0L/story.html

http://ij.org/action-post/foul-ball-ten-cities-that-used-eminent-domain-for-sports-stadiums/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
White Unicorn
On 10/29/2016 at 6:10 PM, Buzz_Light_Year said:

Yeah the pipeline was granted eminent domain.

Iowa farmers sue to block use of eminent domain for Bakken pipeline

I forgot about the Supreme Court case that ruled it was permissible for the government to take property from one private owner and give it to another in order to promote economic development. I think this needs to be reversed. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London

Wow, eminent domain used for a private company. Usually it involves road expansions or a new highway taking the home or part of the property. Most owners are OK with it, because they are well paid and get enough money to pay for a new home of like value. This is an outrageous dealing, a private company using this law would set an unnerving precident.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatetopa
9 hours ago, White Unicorn said:

Wow, eminent domain used for a private company. Usually it involves road expansions or a new highway taking the home or part of the property. Most owners are OK with it, because they are well paid and get enough money to pay for a new home of like value. This is an outrageous dealing, a private company using this law would set an unnerving precident.

Before he was president, George W made use of it to secure the site of a baseball stadium.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
White Unicorn
16 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

My heart goes out to the American Indian protestors in North Dakota, they were less threatening then these white guys who got a good outcome in the trial. 

We are breaking aTreaty  about their land, resources and burial grounds. The UN even sided with them but they and reporters who were trying to film the unethical violence against them were attacked and some jailed. It's more of a federal case then the Bundy bunch but politicians don't want to see it except for Elizabeth Warren, Sanders and some others. Greed set above Treaty once again :(

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
Just now, White Unicorn said:

My heart goes out to the American Indian protestors in North Dakota, they were less threatening then these white guys who got a good outcome in the trial. 

We are breaking aTreaty  about their land, resources and burial grounds. The UN even sided with them but they and reporters who were trying to film the unethical violence against them were attacked and some jailed. It's more of a federal case then the Bundy bunch but politicians don't want to see it except for Elizabeth Warren, Sanders and some others. Greed set above Treaty once again :(

The standing rock fiasco highlights every single thing wrong with this nation. Big Oil using its financial and political influence to shred established treaties while law enforcement goons from 20 something different jurisdictions line up to assault peaceful protesters. Media is being suppressed, arrested even shot with rubber bullets while giving interviews. Backroom deals with politicians, the whole nine yards. ....Oh right and the whole destroying the environment for profit thing. 

Yesterday Anonymous claimed to have proof that the ND governor stands to personally make millions off the deal and threatened to release said info if he doesnt stand down. As always the veracity of such things is questionable. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
White Unicorn
18 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

The standing rock fiasco highlights every single thing wrong with this nation. Big Oil using its financial and political influence to shred established treaties while law enforcement goons from 20 something different jurisdictions line up to assault peaceful protesters. Media is being suppressed, arrested even shot with rubber bullets while giving interviews. Backroom deals with politicians, the whole nine yards. ....Oh right and the whole destroying the environment for profit thing. 

Yesterday Anonymous claimed to have proof that the ND governor stands to personally make millions off the deal and threatened to release said info if he doesnt stand down. As always the veracity of such things is questionable. 

I'm sure we're going to see other Native American tribes fighting for their uranium rights as well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77

Will Trump Pardon Cliven Bundy? 

Quote

And now that President Donald Trump has pardoned Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio, infamous for his extreme use of profiling to target undocumented immigrants, Bundy’s supporters see an opportunity for him as well. Bundy has been in jail since February 2016 and is set to stand trial on October 10 for his role in the ranch standoff, along with his sons Ryan and Ammon and four other defendants.

Longtime Trump confidant Roger Stone has been leading the charge for a pardon, as he did for Arpaio. In July, Stone was the featured attraction at a Las Vegas fundraiser for the Bundy defendants. He gave a speech calling on Trump to “review this case in the name of justice, in the name of mercy” and “pardon every member of the Bundy family.” Following the roadmap he used for Arpaio, he’s also raised the issue on the conspiracy-theory website InfoWars, and he repeated the pardon calls last month in another visit to Las Vegas.

I post this because someone I know had an interaction with a gentleman who claimed to be on his way to pick up someone involved in the siege of the ranch who was being pardoned soon, claiming there were plans in the works of some sort for after the prisoner was released. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.