She plead a good case and was very convincing up until the last few lines, then she hit conspiracy mode and lost all credibility. The people in power listening to her testimony would have gone out with a much more favorable view of her pleas had she not done that.
fortune cookie say: better a delay than a disaster
Here is a little bit of info for ya. You might recognize it....
"For other officials, including members of Congress, it specifies they "shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation to support this constitution." At the start of each new U.S. Congress, in January of every odd-numbered year, those newly elected or re-elected Congressmen - the entire House of Representatives and one-third of the Senate - must recite an oath:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.[16]
This oath is also taken by the Vice President, members of the Cabinet, and all other civil and military officers and federal employees other than the President. While the oath-taking dates back to the First Congress in 1789, the current oath is a product of the 1860s, drafted by Civil War-era members of Congress intent on ensnaring traitors."
Either they protect the constitution or we will, sounds simple to me. We appoint them to represent us. "by the people, for the people"
"it can never be assured, nor should we ever believe, that government could never become oppressive and devolve into tyranny"
Convincing of what ?? That she watched her parents die in front of her? That she feels the constitution is what this country is founded on, that for over 200yrs men and women have fought for, died for. That the founding fathers fled their country to make a better one. That she believes in the 2 amendment.
Your wording may be different than what I take it as but what I get out of it, you seem to think she is disingenuous of here testimony. Also what she states is some kind of weird conspiracy crap!
Sorry but I feel very very differently
Quote:
...being able to protect ourselves from all of you guys up there...
When you think the governemnt is plotting to physically injure you... conspiracy.
She would have made a more favorable impression had she simply recited her personal experience.
fortune cookie say: better a delay than a disaster
Quote:
When you think the government is plotting to physically injure you...conspiracy
Tell that to Vicky Weaver.
Chris
"An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations. The battle sir, is not of the strong alone. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death."
Speech at the Second Virginia Convention at St. John's Church in Richmond, Virginia (23 March 1775) Patrick Henry
Taetsch Z-24 wrote:Quote:
When you think the government is plotting to physically injure you...conspiracy
Tell that to Vicky Weaver.
There was no secret plotting there. When you support your husband in his shady business, his refusal to show up for trial, and his refusal to even receive communications from officials, you shouldn't expect a happy ending.
Unless you think the goal of the standoff was to kill his wife through a door by shooting at his buddy? Maybe it was a government conspiracy to pay millions to a family that deemed themselves above the law?
fortune cookie say: better a delay than a disaster
Entrapment, a sniper that blew her head off with a baby in her arms...
All for cutting a barrel off a shot gun for a federal officer.
and if they were wrong, why did they get awarded so much?
ya..great regime billery had there.
But don't forget to "trust" the government that wants to take away rights.
Chris
"An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations. The battle sir, is not of the strong alone. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death."
Speech at the Second Virginia Convention at St. John's Church in Richmond, Virginia (23 March 1775) Patrick Henry
Taetsch Z-24 wrote:a sniper that blew her head off with a baby in her arms...
1) "Baby in her arms" = purely sensationalist, does not contribute
2) At last check, even snipers don't have X-ray vision, so he didn't actually know she was there.
Taetsch Z-24 wrote:All for cutting a barrel off a shot gun for a federal officer.
And refusing to appear in court, and refusing to communicate with officials. Due Process is a 2-way street.
Do you believe you should be able to get away with small crimes if you just refuse to be held accountable?
Taetsch Z-24 wrote:and if they were wrong, why did they get awarded so much?
Because the agency failed to follow procedure. Not because they were set up as part of a conspiracy to kill the mother.
Taetsch Z-24 wrote:ya..great regime billery had there.
I'm pretty sure this applies to every Presidential tenure in history, and every government of all time. If you think Clinton told the sniper to shoot her (as you seem to imply), you're just too far gone.
fortune cookie say: better a delay than a disaster
OHV notec wrote:Do you believe you should be able to get away with small crimes if you just refuse to be held accountable?
not that I agree with one side or the other here, but regarding this question.......................
Our govt does, why can't we?
Quote:
2) At last check, even snipers don't have X-ray vision, so he didn't actually know she was there.
if thats the argument you're going to use, then why shoot?
when i was 11 years old taking hunters safety, i learned to be sure of the target and what lies beyond the target before firing. why the hell wouldn't a sniper know that?
Check out my build thread!
J03Y wrote:OHV notec wrote:Do you believe you should be able to get away with small crimes if you just refuse to be held accountable?
not that I agree with one side or the other here, but regarding this question.......................
Our govt does, why can't we?
I'm not saying the government should either. If you have proof the government is breaking the law, the legal branch is in place for a reason.
RuggedZ wrote:Quote:
2) At last check, even snipers don't have X-ray vision, so he didn't actually know she was there.
if thats the argument you're going to use, then why shoot?
when i was 11 years old taking hunters safety, i learned to be sure of the target and what lies beyond the target before firing. why the hell wouldn't a sniper know that?
He was shooting at the guy in front of the door... he probably wasn't expecting to miss?
Maybe he just had an itchy trigger finger?
Maybe he wanted to get things moving?
Maybe he didn't want the world to know he had been having an affair with Vicky Weaver?
Maybe he knew she was there, and a secret society had paid him off to take her out so that she could be used as a martyr in future conspiracy theories against firearms regulation?
I wasn't there, I don't know exactly what information he had available.
Is anyone here willing to come out and say you believe the government planned to kill Vicky Weaver ahead of time?
Is anyone here willing to come out and say you believe he was within his rights to refuse to acknowledge our legal system?
I AM willing to say that given the limited public knowledge of the situation, the sniper never should have taken the shot. But, that doesn't make it a conspiracy, which is what brought all this up in the first place.
fortune cookie say: better a delay than a disaster
What makes me laugh about these posts is how stuff like Ruby Ridge is somehow linked to the Democratic party. Last time I checked the FBI, ATF and Secret Service mostly keep the same field agents no matter if it's an elephant or donkey in the White House. Besides, similar stuff has happened under the Republicans.
Kent State,
Rainbow Farm, among others.
Also, is anyone REALLY outraged by this? Seriously? If it'd been a bunch of drug dealers from Compton who may or may not have been part of the Nation of Islam instead of a bunch of paranoid hillbillies, you'd hear no opposition.
