Breaking! Bundy Ranch Double Cross? More Feds, Cops, Vehicles, Equipment Arriving!

This is getting to be fun.

originally posted by: gariac
a reply to: Daedalus

Bundy owes the government a million dollars. He won't pay. Sounds like a criminal to me.

again, your weak grasp of the english language is showing....in addition to a poor understanding of the legal mechanisms in place here...

furthermore, how can you be sure he owes the federal government a million dollars? do you have some sort of proof, or is the extent of your proof a "because we said so" from the government?

and even if he DOES owe them a million dollars, does this give them any right to send in armed agents to kill his cattle, and threaten people with automatic weapons, and sniper rifles?

originally posted by: Daedalus

originally posted by: gariac
a reply to: Daedalus

Bundy owes the government a million dollars. He won't pay. Sounds like a criminal to me.

again, your weak grasp of the english language is showing....in addition to a poor understanding of the legal mechanisms in place here...

furthermore, how can you be sure he owes the federal government a million dollars? do you have some sort of proof, or is the extent of your proof a "because we said so" from the government?

and even if he DOES owe them a million dollars, does this give them any right to send in armed agents to kill his cattle, and threaten people with automatic weapons, and sniper rifles?

Big talk from a person that hasn't mastered capitalization. Thanks for playing.

a reply to: rockflier

Did you actually look at the map you posted? It includes the NTTR and UTTR. Thus you hate the military. Case closed. Or you could admit that map is just crap.

originally posted by: gariac
Big talk from a person that hasn't mastered capitalization. Thanks for playing.

lol....so rather than actually make a point, or say something intelligent, you're just gonna pick on capitalization...

i should have expected as much...you got nothing.

thank YOU for playing...

originally posted by: rockflier
This is getting to be fun.

I know this is complicated, but Russia and the Ukraine are different countries. Nevada is a state in the United States. You can look that up. Hence Obama didn't invade Nevada. Rather he is, indirectly, enforcing the laws of the United States.

Such a shame that kid had to expose himself to public humiliation for holding such a stupid sign. If only he had better parents.

originally posted by: gariac
I know this is complicated, but Russia and the Ukraine are different countries. Nevada is a state in the United States. You can look that up. Hence Obama didn't invade Nevada. Rather he is, indirectly, enforcing the laws of the United States.

Such a shame that kid had to expose himself to public humiliation for holding such a stupid sign. If only he had better parents.

um...it says "attacked", not "invaded"....big difference between the two..

english, man...

also, if you could drop the smug aloof superior attitude, that'd be great....

originally posted by: gariac
a reply to: rockflier

You are aware the Nevada constitution gave all that land to the government. Why do you hate the rule of law?

Sometime laws run their course and are shown to be in need of a reversal. This is also the rule of law. Anything can be protected by law even corruption.

a reply to: Daedalus

You mad bro? lol

Bundy, and your argument has been completely destroyed. The rule of law is just that. Bundy does not get to choose which laws to abide by. The resulting terrorist actions by him and his militia buddies confirm he is in the wrong.

a reply to: HauntWok

Many things, many laws have been changed by folks that were first on the wrong side of them.

I suppose Rosa Parks was a terrorist criminal for standing up to the american apartheid system. Lexington and Concord were certainly unlawful acts, treason in fact.

originally posted by: HauntWok
a reply to: Daedalus

You mad bro? lol

Bundy, and your argument has been completely destroyed. The rule of law is just that. Bundy does not get to choose which laws to abide by. The resulting terrorist actions by him and his militia buddies confirm he is in the wrong.

Back in the Clinton and Bush years there was a lot of debate about the coming misuse of the word "terrorist" the fear was if it was over applied it would be a label attached to almost anyone and anything that was in opposition to the government in any way.

The post above along with Harry Reid's comments among many others in recent time proves those so long ago opposed to it's misuse were correct in their predictions.

If the rule of law is just that then where are all posts about this administrations flouting it? Could I say under reasoning in quoted text that the president on down in this government are terroristic in their flouting of rule of law? Laws they actually took an oath to uphold? unlike Bundy who's just trying to make an independent living on land that generations of his family has used.

Congressman Stockman pointed out BLM's violation of law in its method of executing court orders, is that ok? is it ok that the BLM violated the 1st amendment to the constitution? is it ok that BLM violated court order by slaughtering instead of seizing cattle.

Seems the only terrorism has been at the hands of thugs the BLM brought in to carry out their agenda.

Now what's a terrorist?

originally posted by: gariac
a reply to: rockflier

Did you actually look at the map you posted? It includes the NTTR and UTTR. Thus you hate the military. Case closed. Or you could admit that map is just crap.

I certainly did look. The map is crap? Sir, the only crap I have found are your spoutings. Enough of this. You have gotten personal and off topic. To draw the conclusion you did we could say that you hate Bundy, hence you hate beef, hence you are a vegan. Flawed logic to the extreme.

Fact: Between 80-85% of NV land is federally controlled. FACT: Of this 80-85% only 40% is military, nuclear, etc. in nature. The rest is recreational, grazing, mining, solar, etc. Fess up man, you knoweth not of what you speak.

Perhaps this will meet with your approval as to source and reliability.


Legislative Committee on Public Lands
If you will notice, this is exactly the map I posted, without the coloration.

a reply to: Phoenix

Simply put, Bundy is using threats of violence against Americans in order to cow the population to his will.

If he wants the rules changed, he should buy congress like everyone else does and conservative people endorse and embrace.

a reply to: HauntWok

Last time I checked, Reid is a leftist, excuse me, Democrat.

originally posted by: HauntWok
a reply to: Phoenix

Simply put, Bundy is using threats of violence against Americans in order to cow the population to his will.

If he wants the rules changed, he should buy congress like everyone else does and conservative people endorse and embrace.

Just exactly what quote or source do you have of Bundy threatening Americans? All I've ever heard him make are statements that are defensive in nature. Again I point out factually the only violence came from government thugs. Everyone on Bundy's side has taken a decidedly defensive posture. The catalyst for Bundy's plight becoming a national issue came from a clear violation of the constitution's 1st amendment by the BLM's actions - not from Bundy.

Buying politicians is not a conservative or progressive thing, just look around at all the cronyism with Reid and such besides someone like Bundy never should have to buy off anyone.

I read these threads posts and I wonder at all the hate and vitriol towards someone who has provably done no harm nor caused any issue with those posters other than disagree about government powers and over reach along with what seemingly turns out to be crony capitalism backing its motives. Turtles were definitely not the reason.

You espouse rule of law in this situation, what's stance on closure of border? Holder being in contempt and about a thousand other flaunts of the law by politicians - yet Bundy is an easy target is he not?

a reply to: Phoenix
Bravo!

Looking at the timeline of events, it looks like the Feds showed up on April 5. It was not until April 10 that Bundy supporters started showing up in force. I thought that the Feds had all their armor and weaponry in place as a result of the armed supporters being at the Bundy Ranch. Up until the 10th, the Bundy supporters were unarmed and merely protestors. Sheds a bit of a different light on their stated agenda.
SOURCE

originally posted by: rockflier
a reply to: Phoenix
Bravo!

Looking at the timeline of events, it looks like the Feds showed up on April 5. It was not until April 10 that Bundy supporters started showing up in force. I thought that the Feds had all their armor and weaponry in place as a result of the armed supporters being at the Bundy Ranch. Up until the 10th, the Bundy supporters were unarmed and merely protestors. Sheds a bit of a different light on their stated agenda.
SOURCE

Yup government manned up first and seemed ready to have an incident. If all they really wanted to do was round up cattle then why not hire contractors and have county Sheriff assist if any trouble came from Bundy. Far as I know that's way its supposed to go when applying a court order.

Instead the BLM engaged itself in blowing the issue way out of proportion with presence of para-military enforcers and clear violations of the constitution to boot.

Even Bundy said he recognized the Sheriff's authority and had the BLM done things normally then I don't think we'd be discussing this today.

I lay the effects of the Bundy problem right at BLM's door because of how they decided it was to be done. They have no sympathy from me due their tactics which makes the original issue pale in comparison.

a reply to: HauntWok

Just another thought for you all using rule of law to justify the governments side in the Bundy case now and in future,

The ATF had a court order to arrest and search Randy Weavers house, it could be claimed the government was just using rule of law during that long siege. Rule of law could be used in the case where Randy's son was stitched up the backside by .40 caliber bullets along with the dog. A rule of law excuse could even be used for the death of his wife by an FBI sniper.

Except..............................................................

Turns out evidence for original court order failed to mention the ATF was pissed because Randy refused to be their informer and ATF used a false premise which Randy later proved in court where he won his case against the government.

Didn't much make up for the government ruining his life though.

Are there parallels here? I think so.

Or why didn't they arrest David Koresh while about town the previous Sunday? because they needed a media show after losing the Weaver case - bet rule of law was last thought to the women and children as they burned.

Hackles should go up every time the government makes this kind of response to a seemingly minor matter and for good reason.

Doe's anyone else find it peculiar that these types of incidents occur most frequently during a democratic presidency?

originally posted by: HauntWok
You mad bro? lol

no, not at all....i'm actually rather amused....

Bundy, and your argument has been completely destroyed. The rule of law is just that. Bundy does not get to choose which laws to abide by. The resulting terrorist actions by him and his militia buddies confirm he is in the wrong.

perhaps in your mind those things have been destroyed, but in this place we like to call "the real world", they're still very much here, and completely valid...

i'm still waiting for one of you brain-trusts to tell us exactly what law he's broken...

oh, and it would appear YOU TOO, have a weak grasp of the english language.....here, allow me to show you the folly of your...um...folly....

ter·ror·ist [ter-er-ist]

noun

1. a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism.

2. a person who terrorizes or frightens others.

3. (formerly) a member of a political group in Russia aiming at the demoralization of the government by terror.

4. an agent or partisan of the revolutionary tribunal during the Reign of Terror in France.

adjective
5. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of terrorism or terrorists: terrorist tactics.

terrorism (ˈtɛrəˌrɪzəm)

— n

1. systematic use of violence and intimidation to achieve some goal

2. the act of terrorizing

3. the state of being terrorized

the federal agents out there used violence and intimidation, in an attempt to scare off the protestors. they used terror(in the form of constant threat of loss of life) to attempt to achieve goals, and engaged in terrorist tactics like brandishing weapons, aiming weapons at citizens, tasing citizens, physically assaulting citizens, destruction of personal property....

if you're going to use a word, at least have the sense to know what the goddamn thing means, willya?