Bundy-->> Embattled rancher compares himself with Rosa Parks

page: 4
15
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 25 2014 @ 08:12 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen



Just remember when you try to decipher "The LAW" that the "LAW" deemed corporations people!


If a corporation falls into disrepute with law then it can dissolve itself and theres nothing left to sue. People who run corporations into the ground, or become rogue should be accountable. That law is way over its due date for a rethinking and rewriting.




posted on Apr, 25 2014 @ 08:20 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

I don't have enough room at my place for a ranch either, should I buy some cows and bring them down to the park?



posted on Apr, 25 2014 @ 08:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
Its like free speech.

Bundy is saying something, the government is trying to shut him up.

People who are for free speech should be applauding Bundy. But when some hear and disagree with what he is saying, then they side with the government.

So now we have a caveat to freedom.

In order to be in the right, in order to gain support, you must only say what is appropriate.

Which, in the end, will silence everyone.



Kinda like what happens when people speak out against Obama
They get called racists/liars to force them to shut up

Just saying.....*shrugs*



posted on Apr, 25 2014 @ 08:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: xuenchen

Thank you. I was reading WSJ articles (to satify buster's request) but I knew that you had been on top of this from the start.

All I DO know is that a law enforcement officer that is a friend of mine is heading there.

He knows a hella lot more about the law than I do!



He also probably knows a hell of a lot more of the issue at hand than any of us here pretend to
Would be nice if he had the inside scoop of what was really going down and not just the tid bits from the MSM that we all get



posted on Apr, 25 2014 @ 08:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Wrabbit2000

I agree with you wrabbt 110%.

2nd line.
edit on 25-4-2014 by cenpuppie because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2014 @ 09:01 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

Here's some info about Bundy "saying" he would pay the fees but......



“Let’s make sure we get this straight. I would pay my grazing fees to the proper government and I did try to pay my grazing fees to the proper government. I do not have a contract with the United States because I will not sign that contract with the United States,” Bundy explained. “I have no contract. I did not graze my cattle on the United States property. And I would pay my grazing fees to the proper government.”

source




posted on Apr, 25 2014 @ 09:53 PM
link   
Whether Bundy is right or wrong, to compare himself to Rosa Parks is Hubris at its highest. There is no comparison between the two. Bundy is fighting for civil rights, or human rights, he is fighting a legal property value with the feds. Let's keep things in proper perspective. Grazing cows on public land is not a civil or human right, and Bundy is a land owner.

I'm with Wrabbit, in that I really haven't figured out which side is in the actual right, because of so much posturing and hysterics from both sides. One side paints him as some heroic saint who can do no wrong, the other as a greedy racist moocher trying to get a free ride off the government. The only thing I have been able to figure out, that are concrete and agreed by both sides:

1. The courts have ruled against Bundy twice in the past couple decades.
2. The land is owned by the feds, who are free to dictate terms and conditions, as well as change them.
3. Despite rulings against him, Bundy's cows continued to graze federal land for two decades, yet the feds didn't really seem to care and made no real attempt to enforce the court ruling. Only now do they seem hellbent on removing his cows from the land.
4. Prior to 1993, Bundy grazed his cows on the land and paid grazing fees to the feds without any problems.
5. Bundy did not have proper legal representation in his court battles. However, this was by his own choice, despite the fact he could technically afford it.
6. Most of Bundy's cattle have been returned to him.
7. Bundy is the only rancher grazing on the BLM lands.
8. Bundy's family has owned the ranch since 1948

Beyond these facts, things get murky. Bundy's ancestral claims to the land are weak. The government's claims to be protecting wild life are weak and inconsistent. Claims from both sides are hard to verify. This issue is far from settled.



posted on Apr, 25 2014 @ 11:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: snarky412
a reply to: seeker1963


Not that I disagree? But whom is causing all of our problems?????

The POLICE STATE, we call the government that BUNDY is standing up to!

The FEDS LOST because Americans stood up to the BLM!

Now all they have to use is the RACE CARD!



BINGO!!
We have a winner folks

TPTB along with the MSM is using the Race Card to distract people from the main issue at hand

**THE POLICE STATE**

Since this issue has gotten out of hand due to the fact that people are actually standing up to the gov., the only play they have left is throw out the race card and twist this man's words around....
Simple really and sadly, many have fallen for it hook, line and sinker

What about this couple here that were forced to take a loss on their mountain cabin because the government wanted thier land and came up with BS excuses why they could take it

The couple settled for a loss knowing they were fighting a losing battle
What cost them about $500,000 they only got $130,000 from our conniving distrusting government
At first, they only offered them $30,000...what an insult

But that didn't get as much attention as the Bundy situation
Why, because nobody helped them stand up against their government
Hence, no need to play the race card since it was quietly swept under the rug


What if that was you, fighting for your land?
Or a neighbor
Or a friend
Or family


The point being:
Does skin color really matter when it comes standing up to the government when they insist on playing dirty??
Hell no!!!




BTW, here's your beer....I took a sip *slurp*




it's kind of funny that they are so desperate as to use that race card.

he's a friggin rancher! white, duh! so what? what good does trying to get the blacks and white guilt on the wagon? wtf?
why the hell would blacks care? we know why the white guilt do.

the whole point is to demonize this guy. lol!!

i have to laff at this crap.



posted on Apr, 26 2014 @ 01:47 AM
link   
This is making me want to puke...............if this is the true face of ATS we don't have a ghost chance in hell of resisting the police state you all whine about sheeeit!



posted on Apr, 26 2014 @ 03:17 AM
link   
a reply to: seeker1963

I'm afraid we don't agree there either.


As long as Unions can donate and own politics from their side, Corps of any size ought to have the same. Banning either is a Constitutional issue of free speech but banning one without the other adds due process and equal protection violations to it, as well.

Let bound and organized donation of political money stand for all or none, is my view on that. I don't think our nation supports clipping the wings of one without all.

I just kinda call 'em like I see them, tho. Which is how I'm proceeding on the Bundy story.



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 02:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
He can compare himself to Katness Everdeen, Doris Flootbaum (my neighbor), James T Kirk, or any one of the Lannisters.

Doesn't matter.

The BLM, (government) is doing wrong.

Next, people will stop supporting him because he prefers Coke over Pepsi!

I swear!

Such a bunch of bigoted, biased people!

Let me share something with you nitwits, supporting rights doesn't mean supporting rights you agree with!

It means standing up with people you DON'T agree with!


I agree - supporting rights involves supporting the rights of people that one does not necessarily agree with. In this case, however, I must ask just what "right" people believe they are supporting.

From what I've read so far, Bundy is claiming rights that he does not have, and appears to be inventing a history that never was. As just one example, he seems to be claiming to be "grandfathered" in to run cattle on public lands, but he never had a grandfather on the land in question.

I dunno. Maybe I'm reading all this wrong. If so, anyone can feel free to enlighten me in the matter, and explain to me his "ancestral rights" stemming from ancestors that never were.

Now, if we want to "grandfather" folks in on this deal, and claim ancestral rights, I'd be willing to stand with the Paiutes that got the short end of the stick on this deal. I'd man a rifle in that line, but not Bundy's. The very house he lives in is smack dab in the middle of the lands that president U.S. Grant gave to the Paiutes by executive order in 1873, and also in the "revised" grant from the same President in 1874 - both years that Bundy's forefathers were nowhere to be seen on the Paiute reserved lands.

Are we sure "ancestral rights" are the direction we want to take this in? If they are, gimme a gun and get the Paiutes on line, too... and get Bundy the hell off their land!



edit on 2014/4/28 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 02:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer

There are some of us that disagree with the approach the government is using to take the land. The reasons the government is using is changing all the time.



The government isn't "taking" the land - they already own it. That's sort of the point of the whole kerfuffle. Bundy wants to run his cattle on federal land, and get fat off the public dime without paying his bills.



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 02:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: buster2010

If you want to see my beef with Israel it's real easy to do just click on my name then check out my posts.
What is going on between Bundy and the BLM and Israel and the Palestinians are a different as night and day. Do you really want me to take the time to dumb it down enough so you can understand it?


Nah.

Exactly the same thing.

Israel/Feds are saying "not your land, ours. We have legal papers and everything to prove it!"

Bundy/Palestinians are saying "we don't care... we don' need no stinkin' papers! We got made-up ancestries! We gonna do what we want, and blow some crap up if you try an' stop us!"

In a nutshell.



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 07:39 AM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

What rights are people supporting by supporting Bundy?



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 07:46 AM
link   
a reply to: nenothtu

Well said. There are people right now, always have been and God knows how long will be... fighting the government for their actually owned land. There's heroes galore to be had on this front, plenty of folks that could use a militia presence, though probably not the type that showed up for Bundy. I don't understand what's so special about this jerk.

Gotta disagree with you about Palestine though. What is happening to those people is exactly like what happened to the Native Americans here.
edit on 4/28/2014 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 12:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

A very strange day when we find both of ourselves on the same side of ANY issue!

last night, my wife and I were discussing battered women - and women who only CLAIM to have been battered just to get at a guy. The former is a real problem, and the latter serves only to trivialize that problem, and call into question every report of the occurrence. It does a disservice to the truly battered, making others skeptical of their story and delaying or even blocking justice. It is itself a form of abuse, abusing the justice system to create her own private army to get at a man who she could otherwise not touch, and in the process abusing a man who has in actuality done her no wrong, other than in her own twisted mind.

Ranchers who claim governmental abuse just to cover their own abuses fall under the same category of "boy who cried wolf", and are beneath contempt, same as the women who make false claims of abuse. They mask and trivialize the actual struggles of those who have REAL battles to fight against abuse.

I stand by my statement on the Palestinians, however. Their case is way too much like the Bundy case, sensationalized, spun and packaged to evoke an emotional response, rather than a logical one - which would not get the results they desire. It's not at all like the Indian case in my mind. I can't recall the last time I heard that an Indian bombed a bus load of school children because he was upset with the way the U.S. government treated his ancestors. When an Indian goes to war, he takes it to the Man, the offending party, not to innocent third party proxies.



edit on 2014/4/28 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 01:11 PM
link   
a reply to: nenothtu

I don't find it so strange, we're both anti-authoritarians when it comes down to it and I see in you what I strive for myself which is the ability to see through most BS and the integrity to not always go with the flow.

Your comparison of people who make false claims in order to hurt someone they feel has wronged them is apt and I've used the crying wolf analogy myself on the topic of this fool. Sometimes it feels like a gut punch to see people fall for pretty lies. It's a reprieve to read your opinion on the matter.

The rest is for another day.

Have a good one



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 10:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: nenothtu

I don't find it so strange, we're both anti-authoritarians when it comes down to it and I see in you what I strive for myself which is the ability to see through most BS and the integrity to not always go with the flow.



I don't quite know how to handle a compliment like that, other than to say thank you. I respect you because, while we don't often agree on the details of anything, you at least don't try to drag me down into an emotional mudpit when we get to sparring - you always use logic, whether I like that logic or not.




Your comparison of people who make false claims in order to hurt someone they feel has wronged them is apt and I've used the crying wolf analogy myself on the topic of this fool. Sometimes it feels like a gut punch to see people fall for pretty lies. It's a reprieve to read your opinion on the matter.



Well, the topic didn't come up because of Bundy - we've seen both sides of that actual abuse/false claims of abuse issue, and it ticks us both off when either happens to anyone else, having been on the receiving end. I understand the gut-punch reaction to watching people fall for pretty lies - I see the same reaction in OB, and it pisses her off. I have the same feeling, but a different result. It doesn't piss me off so much as it makes me sad to see people fall for pretty lies and follow the Pied Pier to their doom, walking on the flimsiest of ground to get there.

I have for the most part sat back and watched this issue, and have sen otherwise thinking, logical people just walk right off the cliff because the Piper is calling to them. I don't know just what to make of that, so I'll have to sit and analyze it some more to find a reason for it - if a reason even exists.




The rest is for another day.



OB says that she, and Buster, and you will probably tag-team me on the Palestinian issue some time when I least expect it.





Have a good one




you too.





new topics
top topics
 
15
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join