originally posted by: MrPenny
You keep saying things like this you should be able to support it. Here is exactly what I wrote only a few posts ago...
"The government is justified in sending appropriately armed officers when armed civilians are present and have shown a desire to disrupt the actions
of law enforcement officers. You have the 'cause and effect' backwards."
You'll never get me to seriously consider your comments when you show a willingness to turn it into what you want it to be.
you're not making any sense at all...and frankly, i'm having a hard time figuring out exactly how to respond to what you've said, in a calm, and civil
fashion...so know that i am trying my best, ok?
it's very confusing to me, how you could possibly be under the impression that i am attempting to twist anything here...i don't do spin, or
manipulation...i deal in facts, and truth...real things...
you said that they are within their rights to respond with armed officers, to the armed protesters....but the armed officers were there first. how is
this any kind of twisting, or manipulation? i'm not "turning it into" anything..
I expect them to jump to their pre-determined assumption. At least one of which has demonstrated that perfectly.
If I can do it to you....how effective do you think the agencies that make it a profession might be? "It" is getting you to think what I'd like you to
think. I'm an amateur. You watch though, next week I'll have people convinced I'm an Oathkeeper.
There's no assumption. you imply that he is racist, you imply that you believe he is racist, you quote from a smear piece, that tries to paint him as
a racist....how is that assuming anything?
you haven't done anything to me...you said what you said. if you're trolling, then shame on you.
if you're not being truthful, then i shall make a mental note of the fact that this is the kind of game you like to play, and won't take ANYTHING you
post here serious, going forward....because apparently, all you want to do is be controversial, and stir up fights, rather than have any kind of a
serious, productive conversation..
Good job with the images. We're now up to 4 confirmed dead cows. I know what you're going to say....."but, but, there's 7 cows in those
images". We can only be positive those images show a total of four dead cows. I doubt either you or I know cows well enough to say the three in the
bottom image aren't also in the top image. Still, the BLM admits that 6 cows died during the round-up. Why the outrage? They admit six
actually, the ones laid out on the ground in the one picture, are the ones from the hole in the other picture. those four, plus the two bulls makes
six....as i said though, it's been reported that the BLM dug other holes with their backhoe, and that there are more cattle they haven't dug up, and
more cattle missing/unaccounted for, than just the 6 the BLM has copped to killing...
EDIT: You said the cows with dirt on them were buried by the BLM. How do you know that? Did you see the BLM bury them? Is there video of them
burying dead cows in these pits? You want to play "make stuff up"?....Bundy is already looking at significant financial judgments, what does it matter
now if he himself shoots a couple of hiefers and a couple of old bulls? 4 or 5 K? Pfffttt.....chicken scratch compared to the million bucks he owes
nice try. the "you weren't there" argument doesn't work here....the coverage of everything going on here is so complete, i don't HAVE TO "make stuff
edit on 1-5-2014 by Daedalus because: (no reason given)