Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Talking Points Memo)   Bill O'Reilly asks Bundy Militia member:"How does your protest differ from Occupy Wall Street?" Bundy supporter:"Mr. Bundy is providing the country with beef." Hey everybody: FREE STEAKS   (talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 387
    More: Dumbass, Occupy Wall Street, Bill O'Reilly, Bundy, Wall Street, local church, Bundy supporter, beef, foreign exchange reserves  
•       •       •

4377 clicks; posted to Main » on 23 Apr 2014 at 5:11 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



387 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-04-23 11:10:50 PM  

Gecko Gingrich: pedrop357: Fart_Machine: pedrop357: Mrtraveler01: This is a red-blooded True American Patriot defending us from the shackles of tyranny from the jackbooted thugs at the BLM:

[img.fark.net image 582x386]

Sort of.  One guy covering the scene in case it gets out of control, no different than what the police do, and very prudent given the severe abuse meted out by the police against protestors in nearly every other protest of any serious size and passion.

So you shoot Federal employees in the head in case it gets "out of control"?

Nope, you protect the protestors if the police start launching grenades at their head, wantonly beating people on the ground, tossing grenades at crowds trying help downed people, etc.

Admit it. You got slightly "aroused" typing that, didn't you?


Please don't bring your weird fetishes to this thread.
 
2014-04-23 11:11:12 PM  

pedrop357: If the BLM felt threatened by a large group of people on horseback and foot demanding they change their position


While carrying weapons and threatening them?
 
2014-04-23 11:12:09 PM  

dr_blasto: pedrop357: dr_blasto: I'm pretty sure the picture of the douchebag with the AK on the bridge was threatening federal officers with a firearm. Safely behind some concrete, natch. Of course, they didn't wave them around in the face of the cops, but they did kick a cop's dog. That's not really adult behavior.

He wasn't threatening anyone with a firearm anymore than the police do when they deploy snipers on rooftops for public events, races, protests, etc.

Of course not. He was simply protecting everybody. I had him all wrong; clearly that man was making a noble sacrifice, defending the innocent and a truly exceptional American.


Do you get this way when the police deploy multiple snipers at the most mundane events?
 
2014-04-23 11:13:08 PM  

Mrtraveler01: pedrop357: If the BLM felt threatened by a large group of people on horseback and foot demanding they change their position

While carrying weapons and threatening them?


Carrying a firearm is as constitutional as carrying signs and bullhorns.

What were the actual threats from the crowd?
 
2014-04-23 11:17:12 PM  

pedrop357: Mrtraveler01: pedrop357: If the BLM felt threatened by a large group of people on horseback and foot demanding they change their position

While carrying weapons and threatening them?

Carrying a firearm is as constitutional as carrying signs and bullhorns.

What were the actual threats from the crowd?


Just from Bundy:

That hasn't happened - yet - and the rancher insists his cattle aren't going anywhere. He acknowledges that he keeps firearms at his ranch and has vowed to "do whatever it takes" to defend his animals from seizure.
"I've got to protect my property," Bundy said as Arden steered several cattle inside an elongated pen. "If people come to monkey with what's mine, I'll call the county sheriff. If that don't work, I'll gather my friends and kids and we'll try to stop it. I abide by all state laws. But I abide by almost zero federal laws."


http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2013/sep/23/lone-rancher-prepared-fi gh t-feds-land/
 
2014-04-23 11:20:15 PM  

pedrop357: Fart_Machine: pedrop357: Mrtraveler01: This is a red-blooded True American Patriot defending us from the shackles of tyranny from the jackbooted thugs at the BLM:

[img.fark.net image 582x386]

Sort of.  One guy covering the scene in case it gets out of control, no different than what the police do, and very prudent given the severe abuse meted out by the police against protestors in nearly every other protest of any serious size and passion.

So you shoot Federal employees in the head in case it gets "out of control"?

Nope, you protect the protestors if the police start launching grenades at their head, wantonly beating people on the ground, tossing grenades at crowds trying help downed people, etc.


You protect them by shooting the cops.  Well that certainly won't escalate things.

pedrop357: We'll never know, but we don't tell would be rape victims that arming themselves will only make it worse and they should instead rely on the mercy of their attacker.


If the police were pulling people out of the crowd and raping them you'd have a point but they weren't.

pedrop357: Let it be known that half of the protestors will be armed, and the police won't have the numbers to escalate things the way they do and survive, not even if they can convince outside agencies to come in and help. Each one will have to wonder if it's worth being the cop that gets killed after launching a tear gas grenade directly at a guys head or tossing a grenade into a small crowd trying to rescue the guy who was badly injured.


If they didn't have the numbers then the next step would be summoning the National Guard and that always ends well.
 
2014-04-23 11:21:35 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Just from Bundy:

That hasn't happened - yet - and the rancher insists his cattle aren't going anywhere. He acknowledges that he keeps firearms at his ranch and has vowed to "do whatever it takes" to defend his animals from seizure.
"I've got to protect my property," Bundy said as Arden steered several cattle inside an elongated pen. "If people come to monkey with what's mine, I'll call the county sheriff. If that don't work, I'll gather my friends and kids and we'll try to stop it. I abide by all state laws. But I abide by almost zero federal laws."

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2013/sep/23/lone-rancher-prepared-fi gh t-feds-land/


So one guy vowing to do what it takes.  It might seem threatening, but seems to be right on the edge and isn't that different from the police making similar statements that could be taken as threatening.

When one or two people from the occupy movement(s) were held out as representative of everyone there, we rightly got people here and in other forums saying that not every person felt the same way, that that one person's statements were their own, etc. and that many people here had different reasons for attending.  Hell, some were there to complain about war, lack of this or that, etc.

People here seem to be really quick to demand that all of the so-called militia members should be arrested for various felonies based on the statements of a slim few and actions of even fewer.
 
2014-04-23 11:21:39 PM  

pedrop357: dr_blasto: I'm pretty sure the picture of the douchebag with the AK on the bridge was threatening federal officers with a firearm. Safely behind some concrete, natch. Of course, they didn't wave them around in the face of the cops, but they did kick a cop's dog. That's not really adult behavior.

He wasn't threatening anyone with a firearm anymore than the police do when they deploy snipers on rooftops for public events, races, protests, etc.


You know what the difference between the police setting up snipers along a parade route and a private citizen getting up on a bridge to set up a sniping position? A public event is a scheduled and approved event and the police are contracted to provide security, whereas the private citizen is going onto federal property in order to back up a group of people explicitly seeking the surrender of property legally collected by the federal government per a court order and 20 years of legal findings in favor of the federal government over the man now threatening violence if his demands aren't met. Do you think that is a valid point of contention or not?

By that logic you could argue that there was nothing wrong with a private citizen could bust down a precinct door and seize any property they believe could be related to a crime they suspect the police of since cops are allowed to do that to them when they have a signed warrant. After all, it helps even things out and stops tyranny, right?
 
2014-04-23 11:21:41 PM  
Bundy disputes the federal government's authority to take such action. The Nevada Sheriff's Office, he contends, is the only entity empowered to impound his cattle. The Bundy Ranch website calls the federal agents "cattle thieves."
Cattle thieves, says the website, "Should be hung!"
It urges supporters to "hang them with words of disapproval."


http://abcnews.go.com/Business/nevada-rancher-threatens-range-war-fe ds /story?id=23225314
 
2014-04-23 11:22:46 PM  

pedrop357: Grungehamster: The sniper sure as hell had his gun pointed. Even if they hadn't, there was the threat of violence inherent in the fact that the militia went onto federal land armed and would not allow the BLM to leave unless they surrendered the cattle.

Police snipers regularly have their guns pointed at people without any cause and while I find that offensive, I don't see tons of people claiming that the police are "pointing their guns in the faces of American citizens".

If the BLM felt threatened by a large group of people on horseback and foot demanding they change their position, that's the BLM's problem.

Or are we forgetting that they crashed an ATV into a BLM truck to halt the corralling of the cattle

ONE guy crashed his ATV into that truck and he might have been obstructing, but we see tons of that with people tying themselves to trees to keep them from being cut down, using backhoes to block logging, etc.


SO, basically, what I'm reading into this is that, personally, you do not see the brandishing of semi-automatic rifles en masse, taking up sniper positions and the like as a radical escalation of a situation and that you would not recognize the situation as having dramatically escalated were you, say, in the group on the ground at the end of sniper-douche's sights?

I mean, I can imagine that possible, but that strikes me as completely foreign.
 
2014-04-23 11:23:17 PM  

EvilEgg: They should just pepper spray the area, like dusting crops. That'll break up the protest.


They should use the area denial technology, like heat rays, and sonic blasters.

upload.wikimedia.org  eandt.theiet.org
 
2014-04-23 11:25:24 PM  

pedrop357: Mrtraveler01: pedrop357: If the BLM felt threatened by a large group of people on horseback and foot demanding they change their position

While carrying weapons and threatening them?

Carrying a firearm is as constitutional as carrying signs and bullhorns.

What were the actual threats from the crowd?


You mean like the guy crashing his ATV into the truck?  The guy kicking the police dog?  The protesters getting nose to nose with LOE and screaming in their faces?  Not to mention Bundy calling for a range war.  The guy on the bridge pointing a weapon at LEO.

I'm sure there's more.  But yeah, totally peaceful protest by solid citizens defending the salt o'the earth.
 
2014-04-23 11:25:53 PM  

pedrop357: dr_blasto: pedrop357: dr_blasto: I'm pretty sure the picture of the douchebag with the AK on the bridge was threatening federal officers with a firearm. Safely behind some concrete, natch. Of course, they didn't wave them around in the face of the cops, but they did kick a cop's dog. That's not really adult behavior.

He wasn't threatening anyone with a firearm anymore than the police do when they deploy snipers on rooftops for public events, races, protests, etc.

Of course not. He was simply protecting everybody. I had him all wrong; clearly that man was making a noble sacrifice, defending the innocent and a truly exceptional American.

Do you get this way when the police deploy multiple snipers at the most mundane events?


Pictures of police snipers in protected shooting position at "mundane events?"

I haven't seen any. Well, maybe once: GHW Bush landed in Marine One in MCAS Tustin while I was there. Two Secret Service guys in suits with rifles were on top of one of our hangars with rifles while he addressed a bunch of us. That, however, doesn't strike me as a super mundane event and I kind of expect snipers around presidents.
 
2014-04-23 11:27:19 PM  

Fart_Machine: You protect them by shooting the cops. Well that certainly won't escalate things.


If the police are launching devices at people's faces, tossing grenades at people trying to help those people, and beating subdued people on the ground, the situation has already been escalated.


If the police were pulling people out of the crowd and raping them you'd have a point but they weren't.

The point is that we don't tell would be victims that they should just take it and depend on the mercy of their attacker to save them.  We don't tell people in gang infested neighborhoods to just take what the gang dishes out.

If they didn't have the numbers then the next step would be summoning the National Guard and that always ends well.

If they summon them ahead of time, that will have a polarizing effect on people.  Some will feel that this is the first step in a war on the people, others will be scared and stay away.  Nobody will be happy if that happens.

For the national guard to be summoned afterwards would require that the situation be seriously escalated and that requires at least a few people to be "the first one".  As I said, the cops severely beating and firing weapons at unarmed protestors are cowards and most of them aren't going to step up and be that first cop to get killed  while attacking someone without cause if they know the crowd is armed.
 
2014-04-23 11:29:40 PM  

pedrop357: Mrtraveler01: Just from Bundy:

That hasn't happened - yet - and the rancher insists his cattle aren't going anywhere. He acknowledges that he keeps firearms at his ranch and has vowed to "do whatever it takes" to defend his animals from seizure.
"I've got to protect my property," Bundy said as Arden steered several cattle inside an elongated pen. "If people come to monkey with what's mine, I'll call the county sheriff. If that don't work, I'll gather my friends and kids and we'll try to stop it. I abide by all state laws. But I abide by almost zero federal laws."

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2013/sep/23/lone-rancher-prepared-fi gh t-feds-land/

So one guy vowing to do what it takes.  It might seem threatening, but seems to be right on the edge and isn't that different from the police making similar statements that could be taken as threatening.

When one or two people from the occupy movement(s) were held out as representative of everyone there, we rightly got people here and in other forums saying that not every person felt the same way, that that one person's statements were their own, etc. and that many people here had different reasons for attending.  Hell, some were there to complain about war, lack of this or that, etc.

People here seem to be really quick to demand that all of the so-called militia members should be arrested for various felonies based on the statements of a slim few and actions of even fewer.


Really? You dispute that Cliven Bundy had ANY authority or control of a militia that explicitly came to get back his cattle? He's just one voice in the crowd, and assuming they're following his directions just because they came there explicitly to join his cause and directed the militia to go onto the federal land to block off BLM from loading up the cattle and leaving is giving him too much credit?
 
2014-04-23 11:29:41 PM  

pedrop357: Mrtraveler01: Just from Bundy:

That hasn't happened - yet - and the rancher insists his cattle aren't going anywhere. He acknowledges that he keeps firearms at his ranch and has vowed to "do whatever it takes" to defend his animals from seizure.
"I've got to protect my property," Bundy said as Arden steered several cattle inside an elongated pen. "If people come to monkey with what's mine, I'll call the county sheriff. If that don't work, I'll gather my friends and kids and we'll try to stop it. I abide by all state laws. But I abide by almost zero federal laws."

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2013/sep/23/lone-rancher-prepared-fi gh t-feds-land/

So one guy vowing to do what it takes.  It might seem threatening, but seems to be right on the edge and isn't that different from the police making similar statements that could be taken as threatening.

When one or two people from the occupy movement(s) were held out as representative of everyone there, we rightly got people here and in other forums saying that not every person felt the same way, that that one person's statements were their own, etc. and that many people here had different reasons for attending.  Hell, some were there to complain about war, lack of this or that, etc.

People here seem to be really quick to demand that all of the so-called militia members should be arrested for various felonies based on the statements of a slim few and actions of even fewer.


Aiding and abetting a felony has always been a felony in itself.
 
2014-04-23 11:30:06 PM  

dr_blasto: SO, basically, what I'm reading into this is that, personally, you do not see the brandishing of semi-automatic rifles en masse, taking up sniper positions and the like as a radical escalation of a situation and that you would not recognize the situation as having dramatically escalated were you, say, in the group on the ground at the end of sniper-douche's sights?

I mean, I can imagine that possible, but that strikes me as completely foreign.


If that counts as escalation, then every police presence ever is also considered to be radical escalation.

At various public events where the police set up snipers, I or others in that group have undoubtedly been in their sights.

At least if the ONE guy we saw setting up a sniper position were to shoot someone, there would be a thorough investigation by the DA and police.  The other members of his group (assuming he's in a group) wouldn't get to investigate him the way the police investigate themselves.
 
2014-04-23 11:31:41 PM  

chuggernaught: You mean like the guy crashing his ATV into the truck? The guy kicking the police dog? The protesters getting nose to nose with LOE and screaming in their faces? Not to mention Bundy calling for a range war. The guy on the bridge pointing a weapon at LEO.

I'm sure there's more. But yeah, totally peaceful protest by solid citizens defending the salt o'the earth.


A few bad apples, isolated incident, etc.

You literally brought up maybe 10 people total, some of whom were acting just like protestors at protests (yelling in the face), and others who try to block off streets or push back against the police.
 
2014-04-23 11:32:41 PM  

dr_blasto: Aiding and abetting a felony has always been a felony in itself.


In that case, many occupiers were aiding and abetting by "intimidating" the police when they tried to break up their little campouts in public and private parks.
 
2014-04-23 11:33:49 PM  

pedrop357: If the police are launching devices at people's faces, tossing grenades at people trying to help those people, and beating subdued people on the ground, the situation has already been escalated.


No, escalating would be using live ammo to shoot into the crowd once the crowd starts firing on you.

pedrop357: If they summon them ahead of time, that will have a polarizing effect on people. Some will feel that this is the first step in a war on the people, others will be scared and stay away. Nobody will be happy if that happens.


If the cops are fired upon by protesters then that polarizing effect will be on the protesters, not the cops.  Then the public won't have all that much sympathy once the National Guard starts gunning people down.
 
2014-04-23 11:35:44 PM  

Mrtraveler01: The Daily Show is about to tear Hannity another new one.



They did, and it was a thing of beauty.
 
2014-04-23 11:36:17 PM  

pedrop357: dr_blasto: SO, basically, what I'm reading into this is that, personally, you do not see the brandishing of semi-automatic rifles en masse, taking up sniper positions and the like as a radical escalation of a situation and that you would not recognize the situation as having dramatically escalated were you, say, in the group on the ground at the end of sniper-douche's sights?

I mean, I can imagine that possible, but that strikes me as completely foreign.

If that counts as escalation, then every police presence ever is also considered to be radical escalation.

At various public events where the police set up snipers, I or others in that group have undoubtedly been in their sights.

At least if the ONE guy we saw setting up a sniper position were to shoot someone, there would be a thorough investigation by the DA and police.  The other members of his group (assuming he's in a group) wouldn't get to investigate him the way the police investigate themselves.


I don't agree that there's an equivalence between the cops and the militia clowns: the uniformed types are anserable to society as a whole-yeah, I understand the joke-but the beardo militia toolbag is answerable to only himself.

Cops don't draw, typically don't carry rifles. I can concede that aggressive posture would make a difference. When cops adapt an aggressive posture, they're most definitely escalating the situation. I still can't remember ever seeing a non-presidential sniper thing though.
 
2014-04-23 11:36:20 PM  

pedrop357: dr_blasto: Aiding and abetting a felony has always been a felony in itself.

In that case, many occupiers were aiding and abetting by "intimidating" the police when they tried to break up their little campouts in public and private parks.


Trespassing is a misdemeanor.  If you start pulling guns on cops who try and move you then you've just graduated it into a felony.
 
2014-04-23 11:36:49 PM  

Grungehamster: You know what the difference between the police setting up snipers along a parade route and a private citizen getting up on a bridge to set up a sniping position? A public event is a scheduled and approved event and the police are contracted to provide security, whereas the private citizen is going onto federal property in order to back up a group of people explicitly seeking the surrender of property legally collected by the federal government per a court order and 20 years of legal findings in favor of the federal government over the man now threatening violence if his demands aren't met. Do you think that is a valid point of contention or not?


Being paid or contracted to do something doesn't change what's being done.

That citizen was on public property backing up protestors, which is very prudent given how police all ove the country across decades  have treated protestors.  If the motives or objectives of the protestors mean that they are somehow undeserving of protection, we're headed down an ugly road.


By that logic you could argue that there was nothing wrong with a private citizen could bust down a precinct door and seize any property they believe could be related to a crime they suspect the police of since cops are allowed to do that to them when they have a signed warrant. After all, it helps even things out and stops tyranny, right?

I actually would love for people to start applying police tactics against them, especially civil forfeiture.
 
2014-04-23 11:37:24 PM  

Fart_Machine: pedrop357: dr_blasto: Aiding and abetting a felony has always been a felony in itself.

In that case, many occupiers were aiding and abetting by "intimidating" the police when they tried to break up their little campouts in public and private parks.

Trespassing is a misdemeanor.  If you start pulling guns on cops who try and move you then you've just graduated it into a felony.


Who pulled guns on cops?
 
2014-04-23 11:37:53 PM  

pedrop357: Fart_Machine: pedrop357: dr_blasto: Aiding and abetting a felony has always been a felony in itself.

In that case, many occupiers were aiding and abetting by "intimidating" the police when they tried to break up their little campouts in public and private parks.

Trespassing is a misdemeanor.  If you start pulling guns on cops who try and move you then you've just graduated it into a felony.

Who pulled guns on cops?


Weren't you saying you wanted the protesters to be armed?
 
2014-04-23 11:38:33 PM  

dr_blasto: Aiding and abetting a felony has always been a felony in itself.


No, see! They were just hundreds of people traveling to Bunkerville, Nevada (pop. 1303) for all sorts of reasons! Not all the protesters were there over the tyranny of the government in seizing those cows pursuant a valid court order, we just must have missed their signs and they weren't interviewed.
 
2014-04-23 11:38:37 PM  

pedrop357: dr_blasto: Aiding and abetting a felony has always been a felony in itself.

In that case, many occupiers were aiding and abetting by "intimidating" the police when they tried to break up their little campouts in public and private parks.


They were being rude, loud and possibly aggressive. Those aren't felonies. Neither was camping in the parks.
 
2014-04-23 11:40:34 PM  
Well that's easy.  The militia types want to be left alone while taking free taxpayer stuff.  OWS types want lots of attention while people hand them gimme gimme free taxpayer stuff on a platter.  I can see why the two are easily confused though, because both are entitled whiny douchefests.
 
2014-04-23 11:41:12 PM  

Grungehamster: dr_blasto: Aiding and abetting a felony has always been a felony in itself.

No, see! They were just hundreds of people traveling to Bunkerville, Nevada (pop. 1303) for all sorts of reasons! Not all the protesters were there over the tyranny of the government in seizing those cows pursuant a valid court order, we just must have missed their signs and they weren't interviewed.


I do hope they weren't there for ATV driving lessons. Because if they paid for that, they got ripped off.
 
2014-04-23 11:41:41 PM  

dr_blasto: I don't agree that there's an equivalence between the cops and the militia clowns: the uniformed types are anserable to society as a whole-yeah, I understand the joke-but the beardo militia toolbag is answerable to only himself.

Cops don't draw, typically don't carry rifles. I can concede that aggressive posture would make a difference. When cops adapt an aggressive posture, they're most definitely escalating the situation. I still can't remember ever seeing a non-presidential sniper thing though.


The uniformed types can hide behind qualified immunity, their departments can sometimes be protected by sovereign immunity, and they routinely investigate themselves.  The so-called militia members don't get any of that from the state.  Imagine how many people here would be losing their minds if the guy on the freeway just said that he was following procedures and that we would have to talk to his friends/companions after they're done investigating him to determine if he did anything wrong.

Cops draw all the time and carry rifles all the time.  Cops draw in situations and circumstances that would see the average person arrested for brandishing at a minimum and menacing or assault more likely.

I also don't see anyone in the videos drawing handguns or carrying rifles at the ready (lots of slung rifles, few in both hands ready to fire)
 
2014-04-23 11:42:39 PM  

Fart_Machine: pedrop357: Fart_Machine: pedrop357: dr_blasto: Aiding and abetting a felony has always been a felony in itself.

In that case, many occupiers were aiding and abetting by "intimidating" the police when they tried to break up their little campouts in public and private parks.

Trespassing is a misdemeanor.  If you start pulling guns on cops who try and move you then you've just graduated it into a felony.

Who pulled guns on cops?

Weren't you saying you wanted the protesters to be armed?


I do.  But being armed and pulling guns on people are two different things.
 
2014-04-23 11:43:03 PM  

pedrop357: dr_blasto: Aiding and abetting a felony has always been a felony in itself.

In that case, many occupiers were aiding and abetting by "intimidating" the police when they tried to break up their little campouts in public and private parks.


People can't freely use public land now?

Tell Bundy that.
 
2014-04-23 11:43:37 PM  

JC22: most likely it involves Reid and the solar farm from the Chinese.


DRINK!
 
2014-04-23 11:45:54 PM  

pedrop357: Grungehamster: You know what the difference between the police setting up snipers along a parade route and a private citizen getting up on a bridge to set up a sniping position? A public event is a scheduled and approved event and the police are contracted to provide security, whereas the private citizen is going onto federal property in order to back up a group of people explicitly seeking the surrender of property legally collected by the federal government per a court order and 20 years of legal findings in favor of the federal government over the man now threatening violence if his demands aren't met. Do you think that is a valid point of contention or not?

Being paid or contracted to do something doesn't change what's being done.

That citizen was on public property backing up protestors, which is very prudent given how police all ove the country across decades  have treated protestors.  If the motives or objectives of the protestors mean that they are somehow undeserving of protection, we're headed down an ugly road.


By that logic you could argue that there was nothing wrong with a private citizen could bust down a precinct door and seize any property they believe could be related to a crime they suspect the police of since cops are allowed to do that to them when they have a signed warrant. After all, it helps even things out and stops tyranny, right?

I actually would love for people to start applying police tactics against them, especially civil forfeiture.


Alright, so I understand your position: do you believe Cliven Bundy's position is the correct one in this case, or is your position "law enforcement has too much latitude in behavior so anything that undermines them is a good thing regardless if the people involved are guilty as sin"?
 
2014-04-23 11:48:55 PM  

Felgraf: JC22: My view is if the guy is breaking the law, then put a lien on his stuff. But to show up in that type of force is absolutely ridiculous and something else is going on and most likely it involves Reid and the solar farm from the Chinese.

And Reid needs to get his foot out of his mouth that was just in his @$$ and shut up about domestic terrorists because he has no idea what a domestic terrorist is.

And lastly Mr Reid. If you are going to spout off about enforcing the law and some citizen can't do what he's doing then you need to enforce all laws, especially those that are here ILLEGALLY and also those in that certain government run tax agency called the IRS that owe billion in back taxes.

Can't have it both ways jackass.

Hey, how do you enforce a lien?

Oh right. By confiscating property.

Hey what do you do when the person whose property you're trying to confiscate threatens to shoot you?


Put the lien on it so when he dies, those taxes will be taking out of the inheritance.
 
2014-04-23 11:53:05 PM  

Serious Black: JC22: My view is if the guy is breaking the law, then put a lien on his stuff. But to show up in that type of force is absolutely ridiculous and something else is going on and most likely it involves Reid and the solar farm from the Chinese.

And Reid needs to get his foot out of his mouth that was just in his @$$ and shut up about domestic terrorists because he has no idea what a domestic terrorist is.

And lastly Mr Reid. If you are going to spout off about enforcing the law and some citizen can't do what he's doing then you need to enforce all laws, especially those that are here ILLEGALLY and also those in that certain government run tax agency called the IRS that owe billion in back taxes.

Can't have it both ways jackass.

Please infrom us then: what is a domestic terrorist?


You serious don't understand the difference of what a domestic terrorist is vs what is going on in Nevada.

Go educate yourself on say the Wall Street van bombing of the towers, Theodore Kaczynski  the unabomber, Timothy McVeigh and maybe that recent one up in Boston if you got the time.
 
2014-04-23 11:53:35 PM  

pedrop357: Fart_Machine: pedrop357: Fart_Machine: pedrop357: dr_blasto: Aiding and abetting a felony has always been a felony in itself.

In that case, many occupiers were aiding and abetting by "intimidating" the police when they tried to break up their little campouts in public and private parks.

Trespassing is a misdemeanor.  If you start pulling guns on cops who try and move you then you've just graduated it into a felony.

Who pulled guns on cops?

Weren't you saying you wanted the protesters to be armed?

I do.  But being armed and pulling guns on people are two different things.


But you're OK with protestors pointing guns at people just to make sure things don't "get out of hand".
 
2014-04-23 11:54:53 PM  

Grungehamster: Alright, so I understand your position: do you believe Cliven Bundy's position is the correct one in this case, or is your position "law enforcement has too much latitude in behavior so anything that undermines them is a good thing regardless if the people involved are guilty as sin"?


I lean towards the latter.  I don't much care for the fact this particular incident was what brought some of this about, but I can't help but be glad that it happened.

It's like when a typically untouched mob boss starts getting push back from another smaller mob.  I may not agree with the reasons why the latter is doing it, but can't help but smirk and nod in the affirmative that the former is getting a very tiny dose of what he gives out.  Basically, a softer form of 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend'.

I find it funny that so many people on the left are now obsessed with 'freeloading' and this guy's use of crap land far away from anything, but can't be too upset about it without being hypocritical because another group who (my guess, anyway) also knew nothing about it are using it as a rallying point against the feds.

I will also say that I find at least some of the positions on the right to be hypocritical.  The same ones who were quick to flip out over occupiers using parks and things like that don't seem bothered by this particular use of supposedly public resources.  I mainly dislike the ones who think the feds should keep the land and are perfectly legitimate in owning 85+% of a state but also think they're being unfair to Bundy.  If a politician who thinks the feds should be divesting themselves of the land to the respective states supports this guy, it makes sense that they would support his use of it over the feds objections.
 
2014-04-23 11:55:57 PM  

Felgraf: JC22: My view is if the guy is breaking the law, then put a lien on his stuff. But to show up in that type of force is absolutely ridiculous and something else is going on and most likely it involves Reid and the solar farm from the Chinese.

And Reid needs to get his foot out of his mouth that was just in his @$$ and shut up about domestic terrorists because he has no idea what a domestic terrorist is.

And lastly Mr Reid. If you are going to spout off about enforcing the law and some citizen can't do what he's doing then you need to enforce all laws, especially those that are here ILLEGALLY and also those in that certain government run tax agency called the IRS that owe billion in back taxes.

Can't have it both ways jackass.

Hey, how do you enforce a lien?

Oh right. By confiscating property.

Hey what do you do when the person whose property you're trying to confiscate threatens to shoot you?


Disputes over fees normally result in a lien placed on your property, which gets satisfied when the property is sold or inherited. This military response is quite unusual...and if you don't think so, then you are really clueless. Reid has some vendetta or personal goal here and his buddy runs the BLM.
 
2014-04-23 11:56:49 PM  

Fart_Machine: pedrop357: Fart_Machine: pedrop357: Fart_Machine: pedrop357: dr_blasto: Aiding and abetting a felony has always been a felony in itself.

In that case, many occupiers were aiding and abetting by "intimidating" the police when they tried to break up their little campouts in public and private parks.

Trespassing is a misdemeanor.  If you start pulling guns on cops who try and move you then you've just graduated it into a felony.

Who pulled guns on cops?

Weren't you saying you wanted the protesters to be armed?

I do.  But being armed and pulling guns on people are two different things.

But you're OK with protestors pointing guns at people just to make sure things don't "get out of hand".


I'm OK with average citizen snipers covering crowds the way the police do in case things get out of hand.

If a non-police officer covering the crowd with a rifle is the equivalent of pointing guns at cops just doing their job, then every police sniper is doing the same thing to average citizens exercising their rights.
 
2014-04-23 11:59:13 PM  
pedrop357: dr_blasto: I don't agree that there's an equivalence between the cops and the militia clowns: the uniformed types are anserable to society as a whole-yeah, I understand the joke-but the beardo militia toolbag is answerable to only himself.

Cops don't draw, typically don't carry rifles. I can concede that aggressive posture would make a difference. When cops adapt an aggressive posture, they're most definitely escalating the situation. I still can't remember ever seeing a non-presidential sniper thing though.

The uniformed types can hide behind qualified immunity, their departments can sometimes be protected by sovereign immunity, and they routinely investigate themselves.  The so-called militia members don't get any of that from the state.  Imagine how many people here would be losing their minds if the guy on the freeway just said that he was following procedures and that we would have to talk to his friends/companions after they're done investigating him to determine if he did anything wrong.

Sure, that's true.
Cops draw all the time and carry rifles all the time.  Cops draw in situations and circumstances that would see the average person arrested for brandishing at a minimum and menacing or assault more likely.
For the first sentence, I'm not going to agree. For the second, definitely true, depending on where you live.

I also don't see anyone in the videos drawing handguns or carrying rifles at the ready (lots of slung rifles, few in both hands ready to fire)

Hard to get past the sniper guy.

Another thing is, we as a society pay the uniformed types to do this shiat, with a separate layer of responsibility and generally, broader powers. The point being that they are enforcement corps for society as a whole. That doesn't make them immune to corruption, doesn't make their actions of brutality suddenly "OK," but it does imply they are part of our social contract and their presence to some is comforting, to some annoying and to some frightening. But to just about everyone, they're pretty normal.

The militarized riot cops are too much for all but the worst situations and that shiat is way the fark over the line. The excessive deployment of SWAT is also bullshiat. fark all that stuff.

Now, take away the answerability, take away the protections of the courts, and arm up a bunch of yahoos. That is an escalation. That creates excess risk, and leads to felony action when they interfere with the lawful actions of federal officers, also that guy on the bridge is assaulting the crowd below with a rifle, brandishing and threatening a government agent while in the pursuit of their duties. The people who blocked off that bridge to keep access limited aided and abetted that felony.

There's a picture of a bunch of nuts that are going to potentially (hopefully, as the schadenfreude would be wonderful) lose their weapons collection.

So, there's that. Be funny if the sovereign citizen Bundy nabbed a felony and lost his guns too. His kid might; he assaulted a police officer. When the little shiatbag rammed the BLM truck, he did so with a weapon. That's a violent felony if charges are pressed.

I imagine that they won't pursue charges, though. They'll extract their pounds of flesh from the Bundys and the event will fade into history without martyrs or heroes. The RWA movements will move on to whatever other commie bogeyman they find next.
 
2014-04-24 12:00:31 AM  

AurizenDarkstar: JC22: My view is if the guy is breaking the law, then put a lien on his stuff. But to show up in that type of force is absolutely ridiculous and something else is going on and most likely it involves Reid and the solar farm from the Chinese.

And Reid needs to get his foot out of his mouth that was just in his @$$ and shut up about domestic terrorists because he has no idea what a domestic terrorist is.

And lastly Mr Reid. If you are going to spout off about enforcing the law and some citizen can't do what he's doing then you need to enforce all laws, especially those that are here ILLEGALLY and also those in that certain government run tax agency called the IRS that owe billion in back taxes.

Can't have it both ways jackass.

Yup, you're right.  It has nothing to do with a rancher flouting federal law and thumbing his nose at the BLM, it's all about some dirty, conniving, lowlife DEM (who we all know can't be trusted any further than we can throw them).  In fact, we should throw Mr. Reid in prison for his comments (just to be safe) and strip him of his office while we're out it.

Will that make you feel better, pumpkin?


Ah..so a rancher thumbing his nose at questionable law here (which is still under scrutiny) requires 200 armed agents and snipers to come in?

Now tell me again how something like this brings this type of response yet we don't even get this at the border with drug smugglers and illegals crossing all the time.

Reid is as corrupt as they come. He's got a personal vendetta against this guy and there is obviously more going on here.

And Reid can't sit there and whine about a guy not following the law, when they aren't even following the law. They are saying it's to protect the tortoise YET are killing them because there are too many. And they also have cut land deals for developers and they then move the tortoises off that land. Now how can you say you are protecting the habitat while removing them from it for development and protecting the species yet killing them because there are too many?
 
2014-04-24 12:01:00 AM  

pedrop357: Fart_Machine: pedrop357: Fart_Machine: pedrop357: Fart_Machine: pedrop357: dr_blasto: Aiding and abetting a felony has always been a felony in itself.

In that case, many occupiers were aiding and abetting by "intimidating" the police when they tried to break up their little campouts in public and private parks.

Trespassing is a misdemeanor.  If you start pulling guns on cops who try and move you then you've just graduated it into a felony.

Who pulled guns on cops?

Weren't you saying you wanted the protesters to be armed?

I do.  But being armed and pulling guns on people are two different things.

But you're OK with protestors pointing guns at people just to make sure things don't "get out of hand".

I'm OK with average citizen snipers covering crowds the way the police do in case things get out of hand.

If a non-police officer covering the crowd with a rifle is the equivalent of pointing guns at cops just doing their job, then every police sniper is doing the same thing to average citizens exercising their rights.


To clarify, I'm in full support of parity and balance.  If the police can set up snipers on every roof top to cover a protest, then I fully support the protestors setting up their own snipers to protect those protestors against abuse by the police as well as counter snipers.

We've done the unarmed protestor thing in this country, literally to death for some people and if it takes people balancing the scales to make the police behave, I'm in favor of it.  I'm especially in favor of it a scumbag outfit like the Albuquerque PD deploys numerous fully armed SWAT officers to peaceful protests against them killing people all the time.
 
2014-04-24 12:02:35 AM  

Pimparoo: However, the theory that Reid's putative involvement in the Bundy dispute was motivated by a desire to somehow profit from the building of a solar plant falls flat in the face of two basic facts: The site that ENN Mojave Energy was planning to buy in order to build a solar plant is nowhere near the public land Bundy has been disputing with the government, and ENN gave up the solar project and terminated its agreement to buy land to house it as far back as June 2013:

Read more at  http://www.snopes.com/politics/conspiracy/nevada.asp#T7RQI3w3hxtC6bu5 . 99

/In case anyone still buys the Harry Reid bogeyman theory


Oh look..a liberal news site. Yah I'll buy that. Can you tell me why the information on it was removed suddenly from the BLM then?
 
2014-04-24 12:04:07 AM  

pedrop357: find it funny that so many people on the left are now obsessed with 'freeloading' and this guy's use of crap land far away from anything, but can't be too upset about it without being hypocritical because another group who (my guess, anyway) also knew nothing about it are using it as a rallying point against the feds.


I believe you're just seeing people having fun throwing the right-wing bullshiat back at them as their rampant hypocrisy is fun and amusing to call out.

The exact same thing happens when some nutball Republican is caught wearing diapers while banging prostitutes at night and espousing family values during the day. I'm a way left-wing person who doesn't care if you bang prostitutes and wear diapers or whatever. But I'll certainly be happy to use your own arguments against you.
 
2014-04-24 12:04:12 AM  

JC22: Disputes over fees normally result in a lien placed on your property, which gets satisfied when the property is sold or inherited. This military response is quite unusual...and if you don't think so, then you are really clueless. Reid has some vendetta or personal goal here and his buddy runs the BLM.


In this case not really.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/04/15/everything -y ou-need-to-know-about-the-long-fight-between-cliven-bundy-and-the-fede ral-government/

The supporters have a history of bombing BLM offices and intimidating officials.  It has nothing to do with Reid unless you're a conspiracy nut.
 
2014-04-24 12:04:48 AM  

JC22: Pimparoo: However, the theory that Reid's putative involvement in the Bundy dispute was motivated by a desire to somehow profit from the building of a solar plant falls flat in the face of two basic facts: The site that ENN Mojave Energy was planning to buy in order to build a solar plant is nowhere near the public land Bundy has been disputing with the government, and ENN gave up the solar project and terminated its agreement to buy land to house it as far back as June 2013:

Read more at  http://www.snopes.com/politics/conspiracy/nevada.asp#T7RQI3w3hxtC6bu5 . 99

/In case anyone still buys the Harry Reid bogeyman theory

Oh look..a liberal news site. Yah I'll buy that. Can you tell me why the information on it was removed suddenly from the BLM then?


Ah, so you're trolling.

Go you.
 
2014-04-24 12:06:11 AM  

JC22: Ah..so a rancher thumbing his nose at questionable law here (which is still under scrutiny) requires 200 armed agents and snipers to come in?


He already lost two court cases.  The law isn't questionable; he's just a freeloader asshat.
 
2014-04-24 12:07:30 AM  

JC22: Pimparoo: However, the theory that Reid's putative involvement in the Bundy dispute was motivated by a desire to somehow profit from the building of a solar plant falls flat in the face of two basic facts: The site that ENN Mojave Energy was planning to buy in order to build a solar plant is nowhere near the public land Bundy has been disputing with the government, and ENN gave up the solar project and terminated its agreement to buy land to house it as far back as June 2013:

Read more at  http://www.snopes.com/politics/conspiracy/nevada.asp#T7RQI3w3hxtC6bu5 . 99

/In case anyone still buys the Harry Reid bogeyman theory

Oh look..a liberal news site. Yah I'll buy that. Can you tell me why the information on it was removed suddenly from the BLM then?


OK so you are a conspiracy nut.  Nice knowing you.
 
Displayed 50 of 387 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report