Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
No Pants
Dec 10, 2000

SlipUp posted:

So what was the purpose of these fires these three ranchers set? Were they actually terroristic (is that even a word.) or is that an over reach?

Not that I agree with the militia. I think it's a "whoever wins we lose" kind of situation.

An article linked in the USPol thread expands on the arson/terrorism angle:

quote:

The first fire came in 2001: a simple prescribed burn, intended to take out invasive juniper, by Steve and Dwight Hammond's account.

But federal prosecutors said the men's real motive for starting the blaze, which consumed 139 acres and forestalled grazing for two seasons, was to cover up evidence of an illegal slaughter of deer. The government presented evidence that Steven Hammond called an emergency dispatcher to ask if it was OK to burn -- roughly two hours after they already lit the fire. His attorney said in court that Hammond called the land bureau beforehand.

The government acknowledged that the next fire, in 2006, was intended as a defensive move. Steve Hammond set backfires to keep a lightning-caused fire from burning onto the Hammonds' ranch and hitting their winter feed.

But the government said Steve Hammond lit up on the flanks of a butte, despite a countywide burn ban and the knowledge that young part-time firefighters were camped up higher. Their crew boss spotted the fires, which were set at night, and moved the crew.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

No Pants
Dec 10, 2000

Man Whore posted:

I don't think its worse now, Its just becoming increasingly publicized. As to the second part, uhhh if you say so but I know a lot of "anarcho-capitalists" IRL who ran off to join a militia because the government keeps gunning people down.

"Anarcho-capitalism" kind of gives the opposite of a left-wing vibe.

No Pants
Dec 10, 2000

Man Whore posted:

Yeah but they consider themselves left wing because of things like abortion and militarization. I don't know why.

It doesn't sound any different from right-wing libertarianism to me. :shrug:

No Pants
Dec 10, 2000

Lead out in cuffs posted:

Minor corrections/comments:

I'm pretty sure Tarpman got his foster kids money from the Catholic church, not tax kickbacks.

He got the money from Catholic Charities Community Services. They get most of their funding from government contracts and grants.

  • Locked thread