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

originally posted by: gariac
Read this:
Debunking the sherrif is supreme

Note that the Federal Court is not the Supreme Court. Further the feds have jurisdiction on their own land. You will note the Clark County Sheriff didn't kick the feds out. Why is that? Well because he isn't stupid.

jesus...did you write that post you linked me to?

after doing a bit more digging, it seems there is quite a bit of confusion about the case, and quotations, and rulings, and whatnot...but that post you linked to was a bit slanted..it didn't have the full story..

but, i will admit, it seems this was misreported...i will concede that....but only that.

i'd argue that the clark county sheriff stayed out of it for a few reasons...the first of them being, whether he agrees with bundy or not, it's the fed's beef with him, and he can't be required to take action against bundy.

the other reason is because he seems more interested in playing politics, than protecting the people in his jurisdiction..

what's still up for question is the matter of preemptive rights, and whether or not the federal government can actually, legally own most of a state.....there are certain restrictions in the constitution, with respect to how much land the federal government is allowed to own, regardless of whether it's gifted to them or not. i'm leaning toward it not really being legal, as i don't see forts built all over the place....

originally posted by: gariac
I give you time, date, and place, yet you challenge me and claim it is out of context. In what proper context does one claim:
"I don't recognize the United States government even existing."
A science fiction novel perhaps?

you gave me a date, time, and place, for a segment of a show, that led with ANOTHER outlet's report....

the second outlet's story, is where the out of context quote comes from....if you dig deeper, you find that it's not that he doesn't recognize that the federal government actually exists, it's that he doesn't recognize the existence of their authority over either the land, or over him, to demand he pay for cows eating grass in nevada...the way he expressed that thought wasn't especially articulate, but anyone with an IQ over "toothpaste", can figure out what it is he was trying to say, when they take in the full body of words, instead of the hand-picked snippet that MSM outlets are using as part of this absolutely disgusting smear campaign..

it's kinda like if you were to say that you don't recognize the authority of an NYSP officer to come into your house and arrest you, when you live in montana, and it's spun by the media to make it sound like you don't believe the state of new york exists....it's the same level of absurdity...

I have no problem with responsible gun ownership. I have a problem with praetorian guard pointing guns at federal agents doing their job.

again, you have yet to produce the evidence i've asked you for 3 times now, that supports your claim that protestors were pointing guns at anyone...and why in the hell do you feel the need to use such overly dramatic terms? "praetorian guard" -rolls eyes- seriously?

Randy Weaver's wife would be alive today if he didn't have a pile of fecal matter for brains. But he knowing sold saws off shotguns and didn't want to do the time for his crime.

um, no...you're not really correct about this either...but let's not get sidetracked, as the events of the ruby ridge incident have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with this....i commend you on the deflection attempt though...

Bundy lost in court yet refuses to pay his bill. Sounds like a free loading moocher to me. How would you like it if Bundy owed you money and refuse to pay.

just because he lost a civil case, doesn't automatically mean he's in the wrong......of course the federal government ruled in favor of the federal government.....often times, in a case like that, where the federal government stands to benefit financially from a decision in their own favor, of they're going to do what's financially advantageous, regardless of what the law actually is, or what morality and decency would normally dictate.. it's a bit like going into a casino where the house always wins, because every deck is stacked, and every pair of dice is weighted...

To learn about what Bundy's neighbors think of him:
Armed militia unwanted by rancher's neighbors
You have to wonder about the intellect of Bundy. Not a good plan to insult African Americans when your congressman is one. Oh yeah, I forget, Bundy doesn't recognized the United States government, so I suppose it OK to make a comment about his race and that he should learn to pick cotton.

i'm sorry, your link doesn't work...and i don't consider any of the big cable "news" channels as legit sources of information, as they all spin, and distort the hell out of everything, to suit their bias, and manipulate the opinions of their viewers....if you could find me something from a local news source, that would be fantastic...

and once again, since you seem to be incapable of comprehending strings of words(sentences and paragraphs) that don't conform to your narrow-minded views, i'll say it again....the man is not a racist, and he's done more than enough to prove it....and the clip that you so desperately cling to was intentionally edited, to make him APPEAR racist...if you listen to ALL of what he's saying, you find that, while rather inarticulate, he's not advocating a return to the slavery of black people, nor was he saying that such a reprehensible institution was a good thing...

he was saying that he doesn't know if it's better to be a welfare/government/institutional slave, or an ACTUAL slave...he's making a social commentary on his observation that it appears the government hoodwinked black people into accepting one form of slavery, under the guise of liberating them from another...

Government is better than anarchy. The Bundy Crime Syndicate are anarchists.

again with the dramatics...."bundy crime syndicate"..you sound like one of those silly people who wear tin hats, because the ailens are reading their minds...

and while order is preferable to chaos, the bundys, and their supporters are not anarchists...they are not calling for lawlessness, and chaos, and disorder, and blood, and all the other things one associates with complete anarchy....

and what does the kind of authoritarian government you seem to support, provide? you REALLY want to live in a world where pretty much everything's illegal, and the federal government has ultimate authority over EVERYTHING?

you really need to turn off the cable news channels, and stop hanging out in online spaces where EVERYONE thinks like you....you might actually learn something, and maybe even see that there's more than one side to a story, and that the federal government ISN'T always right....

More good news. The Koch Brothers have pulled their support from Bundy.

i don't give a flying firetruck about the goddamn scumbag kochs...

a reply to: Daedalus

Ah, here we go with the personal insults.

but anyone with an IQ over "toothpaste", can figure out what it is he was trying to say, when they take in the full body of words, instead of the hand-picked snippet that MSM outlets are using as part of this absolutely disgusting smear campaign..

It is not my job to read Cliven Bundy's mind. If he says that he thinks the US government doesn't exist. I will take him at his word. Or is he not a man of his word? Maybe space aliens tell him what to say!

The link went to the Rachel Maddow show. It is an interview with the congressman where Bundy has deeded land. No spin since you hear the congressman in his own words and of course the show is live so there is no editing. Anyone with an IQ over "toothpaste" should be able to master the link.

and while order is preferable to chaos, the bundys, and their supporters are not anarchists...they are not calling for lawlessness, and chaos, and disorder, and blood, and all the other things one associates with complete anarchy....

Obeying the law would be to pay the fine. The armed militia thinks otherwise. Hence they are anarchists. Case closed.

Would it surprise you that I don't have cable? My video news source is "Democracy Now", listener supported. However, the Rachel Maddow show is a podcast, and I do have internet access.

More analysis:

originally posted by: gariac
Ah, here we go with the personal insults.

notice that it was not directed at you, personally....nowhere did i say that you, personally, have the IQ of toothpaste....it was a general statement....you can take it personally, and be butthurt, if you like though...however that just verifies that you are not interested in discussing fact, and are more interested in being "right"

It is not my job to read Cliven Bundy's mind. If he says that he thinks the US government doesn't exist. I will take him at his word. Or is he not a man of his word? Maybe space aliens tell him what to say!

again...when you take into account the entirety of what he says, instead of the cherry-picked snippet the MSM is using to smear him, it becomes clear as day what he's actually saying....

but you can go ahead and ignore that, since it doesn't square with your limited world view...

The link went to the Rachel Maddow show. It is an interview with the congressman where Bundy has deeded land. No spin since you hear the congressman in his own words and of course the show is live so there is no editing. Anyone with an IQ over "toothpaste" should be able to master the link.

and anyone with an IQ over "toothpaste" should be able to post a link that actually goes to where it's supposed to go, instead of a front page that makes no mention of the material in question...

Obeying the law would be to pay the fine. The armed militia thinks otherwise. Hence they are anarchists. Case closed.

you know, i wish the world was ACTUALLY that black and white, but it isn't...

Would it surprise you that I don't have cable? My video news source is "Democracy Now", listener supported. However, the Rachel Maddow show is a podcast, and I do have internet access.

it's slightly surprising...however, all of the cable "news" channels have websites, and you seem to only be frequenting the ones that support your specific bias...

a reply to: Daedalus

Third. That the people inhabiting said territory do agree and declare, that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States; and that lands belonging to citizens of the United States, residing without the said state, shall never be taxed higher than the land belonging to the residents thereof; and that no taxes shall be imposed by said state on lands or property therein belonging to, or which may hereafter be purchased by, the United States, unless otherwise provided by the congress of the United States.

[Amended in 1956. Proposed and passed by the 1953 legislature; agreed to and passed by the 1955 legislature; approved and ratified by the people at the 1956 general election. See: Statutes of Nevada 1953, p. 718; Statutes of Nevada 1955, p. 926.]

www.leg.state.nv.us...

originally posted by: OpinionatedB

so tiresome....

the people didn't make that decision....politicians did, and i'm fairly certain that if you asked the average citizen, they'd have no idea that such a provision even exists...

as i said, regardless of whether it's gifted to them, or not, there ARE strict limits imposed upon the federal government, by the constitution, with respect to how much land it is allowed to own....

a reply to: Daedalus

so being approved and ratified through vote by the people means nothing now?

That's ridiculous. Seriously.

originally posted by: OpinionatedB
a reply to: Daedalus

so being approved and ratified through vote by the people means nothing now?

That's ridiculous. Seriously.

was it put to a referendum? if not, then the people didn't vote on it..

ETA: are you trying to derail the thread too?

originally posted by: Daedalus

originally posted by: OpinionatedB
a reply to: Daedalus

so being approved and ratified through vote by the people means nothing now?

That's ridiculous. Seriously.

was it put to a referendum? if not, then the people didn't vote on it..

ETA: are you trying to derail the thread too?

Actually OpinionatedB is just stating the truth. I know you don't like facts, but the fact is Nevada gave their land back to the US when they joined the United States.

The desert is a very fragile environment. When you damage it, it doesn't recover. That is why you can see wagon wheel tracks in Death Valley. You can't have a free for all in the desert and expect it not to turn into a dust bowl. Somebody has to manage the land.

This is an excellent analysis of the Bundy situation:
22 lies

You can also take the Mother Jones Bundy quiz:
Mother Jones Bundy Quiz

originally posted by: Daedalus

originally posted by: OpinionatedB
a reply to: Daedalus

so being approved and ratified through vote by the people means nothing now?

That's ridiculous. Seriously.

was it put to a referendum? if not, then the people didn't vote on it..

ETA: are you trying to derail the thread too?

We have a representative democracy. The people elect representatives, then the representatives vote. Have you considered studying how government works, well presuming you believe government exists.

originally posted by: gariac
We have a representative democracy. The people elect representatives, then the representatives vote. Have you considered studying how government works, well presuming you believe government exists.

you really need to stop with smartass comments....

i know how government works, and i know how it is SUPPOSED to work...just because i'm not a statist robot like yourself, does not make me ignorant, as you imply..

again, the assertion was that it was passed by a vote of the people, not the elected representatives....that would be a referendum...if there was no referendum, then there was no vote, and the assertion was baseless, and false..

originally posted by: gariac
Unless you are visually challenged, I have to presume you didn't bother to go to the page. Then you would have seen the video is embedded.

Anyone with an IQ exceeding toothpaste would have noticed that.

again, my first instinct is gnawing at me...but i will, once again, show restraint, and ignore it...in the interest of manners and decorum..

clicking your link takes you to the site's frontpage....i think i found the video you were referring to...in the playlist....it was not the featured piece of media on the page you linked...i know this because i did, indeed, visit the site...i even clicked it twice, to make sure it wasn't a server routing glitch, taking me to the wrong page.

you really need to stop...

a reply to: OpinionatedB

It is amazing how many on the left continue to cite the NV constitution in saying that NV gave up 80+% of their land to "join the club" in spite of it being totally contradictory to the US Constitution.

Aside from constitutional concerns — with a few exceptions, the U.S. Constitution does not authorize ownership or control over land by the political class in Washington, D.C. www.thenewamerican.com...

If one reads history, the western states were coerced into turning over much of their land to the Federal government due to unconstitutional mandates by the Feds. The US Constitution specifically prohibits the control and ownership of land by the Feds except for very limited and specific instances. NV has many legitimate areas under federal control for military, nuclear, and research reasons. Reading further, the western states were admitted by the New York World leaders to insure specific results in presidential elections. States have tried, unsuccessfully, to have ownership and stewardship of historic state land returned to state control.
Much of the NV land "managed" by the feds has, in reality, been mismanaged excluding the aforementioned legitimate holdings. You can continue to ignore the US Constitutional mandates and contend that NV ceded land to the Feds. However, in doing this you condone ignoring the US Constitution as has been done by this administration and many others in the past. The idea that the US Constitution is outdated and gets in the way of doing what the bureaucracy wants, for whatever nefarious reasons, is preposterous. Our current Oligarchy continues to ignore, abase, and violate what the founding fathers created.
Article 1, Section 8, paragraph 17 of the US Constitution limits Federal Land Ownership or control as follows:

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings Constitution

P.S. My former copilot passed away yesterday, so you are stuck with me again.

For all the naysaying and the derogatory and willfully ignorant.....I stand behind the Bundys....
Civil war is brewing...which side are YOU on?

www.abovetopsecret.com...
courtesy of anon 72
judge janine weighs in on dirty harry
like a two ton ball

a reply to: Danbones
It is tough to get past her voice. Grating.

originally posted by: rockflier
a reply to: Danbones
It is tough to get past her voice. Grating.

i think part of that is the fact that the audio quality on that vid is atrocious.

but it's a pretty fair assessment of the situation(which is rare, coming from FOX)

originally posted by: stirling
For all the naysaying and the derogatory and willfully ignorant.....I stand behind the Bundys....
Civil war is brewing...which side are YOU on?

I am an American. I stand with the BLM.

Bundy is free to go ranch in Somalia where there are no laws and brandishing weapons is a way of life. He can take his crappy cattle with him. The guy is clueless at breeding cattle. His cattle is an gnarly as the praetorian guard.