Am I missing something? The liberal quarter of my facebook is all lit up about it because there isn't enough media coverage. Sounds like 2 guys went to prison, and now they are being sent back to prison for more time, even though they served their time (isn't that basically double jeopardy?). So the Bundy crew et al from 2014 has occupied the (unoccupied) site of the Malheur Wildlife refuge that is (debatably) the source of all the problems.
From what I read the reopened the case and are extending the sentence because they failed to pay fines. Don't know if it's true, but also heard they were leasing the federal land and burned it to kill the underbrush and it got out of control. If done without a permit which I'm assuming they did to catch the arson charges they did time for. But libs calling it domestic terrorism are retarded and not understanding they aren't promising or acting violent ways, therefore not terrorizing anyone but people scared of guns and don't understand the 2nd amendment. Only media source I've seen covering it is the huffington post which we know loves antagonizing the "right wing" fellas.
But yeah a civil war is very close to breaking out with the country divided lol
Last night I read the same article. This morning, when I was watching the morning news while getting ready for work, the spin they put on the story was completely different. Didn't surprise me, just disappointing.
I wouldn't call it non-bias, but at least it seems a little more fact based. I'd consider it biased because they are using timeline and "facts" to convey a narrative that makes a nice rancher vs FedGov story.
I see this as a problematic fact (map of Government land ownership in Oregon, can't get pic to copy over): Public and private lands in Oregon
And that's why these people are pissed.
From the left side criers on my FB feed: the guys burned the land to cover up illegal poaching (umm....OK) then were sentenced but didn't serve their 5 years, nor pay all the fines, and are going BACK to finish the 5 yr sentence.
Of course my conspiracy friends all jumped on the "The bundys don't WANT armed protesters...they're being set up by Obama supporters to perpetuate drama for his upcoming gun snatching speech"
What is the militia ultimately hoping to achieve?
Garner enough attention over next few weeks to be brought onstage during rally for a low-polling GOP candidate.
Other than the armed part whats the difference between this and the occupy wallstreet and black lived matter groups that everybody thinks is so great???
Other than the armed part whats the difference between this and the occupy wallstreet and black lived matter groups that everybody thinks is so great???
The differences are many but on different planes. Those liberal groups are protesting for increased government control, so the media makes them a darling. These fellows in Oregon are protesting an oppressive government bureaucracy and want government to shrink, so they are "terrorists". If it goes sideways, and those men are killed, the militia/patriot movement in the US has sworn reprisal. No more free Wacos or Ruby Ridges. The shot callers, not necessarily the ground pounders will reap the punishment.
OK, so I am still confused at how, no matter which side of the argument you are on, you can be ok with them sending them back to prison after having already served a sentence. Doesn't that seem like double jeopardy?
That is majorly FUCKED UP and a massive government overreach.
