Relapse wrote: If they hadn't done what they did, the BLM still would have been down there messing with the area.
Don't you mean "enforcing a lawful court order"?
The way they were enforcing the order was alienating everyone because they were coming down on everyone. This was a big factor for the support he got locally.
BLM shows up and enforces a court order that is the direct result of some idiot breaking the law for decades: those evil government agencies are just ruining local commerce, won't anybody think of the corner gas station three towns over that won't sell a soda to some tourist!
Protesters assaulting police officers, preventing people from enforcing a legal court order, and blocking traffic and making sure you can't get your soda because the gas station closed three hours ago (that drive was only supposed to take an hour!): true american heroes. Bravo gentlemen, bravo.
This thread has been the most brilliant display of "I don't give a gak about what the facts are, I don't like the government so screw whatever they are doing and let's all support the true victims here: the poor criminals who are being inconvenienced by the law " that I have ever seen on Dakka. I take my hat off to you good sir.
Relapse wrote: I guess it's one of those you had to be there, or know people there deals.
No amount of being there or not being there would change my mind that the guy who was blocking the truck and shoving the cops should have been arrested for assault and obstruction of justice, and the person who kicked the police dog should have gotten the same.
Certainly, I don't think that peace officers enforcing a lawful and just order after decades of both parties having their day in court should be intimidated out of their duty by heavily armed protesters. I think that's a wildly dangerous precedent to set.
Relapse wrote: I guess it's one of those you had to be there, or know people there deals.
No amount of being there or not being there would change my mind that the guy who was blocking the truck and shoving the cops should have been arrested for assault and obstruction of justice, and the person who kicked the police dog should have gotten the same.
Certainly, I don't think that peace officers enforcing a lawful and just order after decades of both parties having their day in court should be intimidated out of their duty by heavily armed protesters. I think that's a wildly dangerous precedent to set.
We'll just have to sit back and see what Hollywood makes of it.
Relapse wrote: I guess it's one of those you had to be there, or know people there deals.
No amount of being there or not being there would change my mind that the guy who was blocking the truck and shoving the cops should have been arrested for assault and obstruction of justice, and the person who kicked the police dog should have gotten the same.
Certainly, I don't think that peace officers enforcing a lawful and just order after decades of both parties having their day in court should be intimidated out of their duty by heavily armed protesters. I think that's a wildly dangerous precedent to set.
We'll just have to sit back and see what Hollywood makes of it.
Get real.
Didn't they taze a pregnant woman, or was that facebook outrage on my feed a lie?
Relapse wrote: I guess it's one of those you had to be there, or know people there deals.
No amount of being there or not being there would change my mind that the guy who was blocking the truck and shoving the cops should have been arrested for assault and obstruction of justice, and the person who kicked the police dog should have gotten the same.
Certainly, I don't think that peace officers enforcing a lawful and just order after decades of both parties having their day in court should be intimidated out of their duty by heavily armed protesters. I think that's a wildly dangerous precedent to set.
But remember, it was not a "real" court to these militia people. It was some kind of "secret court" that passed down its verdict in the dead of night with no lawful authoritah.
Relapse wrote: I guess it's one of those you had to be there, or know people there deals.
No amount of being there or not being there would change my mind that the guy who was blocking the truck and shoving the cops should have been arrested for assault and obstruction of justice, and the person who kicked the police dog should have gotten the same.
Certainly, I don't think that peace officers enforcing a lawful and just order after decades of both parties having their day in court should be intimidated out of their duty by heavily armed protesters. I think that's a wildly dangerous precedent to set.
But remember, it was not a "real" court to these militia people. It was some kind of "secret court" that passed down its verdict in the dead of night with no lawful authoritah.
Weren't you all for the Occupy Wall Street movement?
Ouze wrote: Now I realize the only mistake OWS made was not being heavily armed. If they had been, the police would have let them break whatever laws they like and they would have been heroes.
Um... the OWS pretty much had their way during the protest. They wouldn't leave.
Court order did not specify rounding up his cattle
Court order did not specify to sell his cattle
Court order did not specify destroying troughs and some other stuff
Court order did not specify running over a Tortuise(sp) burrow either
Think the 34 year old Director who owes his job to Harry Ried over reacted in a huge way.
Court order did not specify rounding up his cattle
Court order did not specify to sell his cattle
Court order did not specify destroying troughs and some other stuff
Court order did not specify running over a Tortuise(sp) burrow either
Think the 34 year old Director who owes his job to Harry Ried over reacted in a huge way.
I can see someone doing the "He didn't do things legally so why should they" argument. And when that happens I shall enjoy it.
Court order did not specify rounding up his cattle
Court order did not specify to sell his cattle
Court order did not specify destroying troughs and some other stuff
Court order did not specify running over a Tortuise(sp) burrow either
Think the 34 year old Director who owes his job to Harry Ried over reacted in a huge way.
A group of gun-wielding protestors squares off against a government it feels holds no authority. Is it Ukraine? Or Syria?
No, Nevada.
A standoff between a cattle rancher and the US government over grazing fees escalated into something akin to an armed confrontation over the weekend - and while threats of violence were defused, there appears to be no resolution in sight.
The story starts with the desert tortoise.
The Washington Post gives a full timeline of the events leading up to the confrontation, but here's the gist.
In 1993, in response to a dropping tortoise population, the federal government set aside hundreds of thousands of acres of federal land in southern Nevada as "protected tortoise habitat". The government prohibited off-road vehicles and mineral prospecting in the area and began buying out ranchers who were grazing their cattle in the designated areas.
They reached a deal with everyone except Cliven Bundy, whose family had been raising cattle on the south-east Nevada land at issue since 1890s.
The government responded by levying fines on Mr Bundy, which he hasn't paid, and getting a court order to remove his cattle from all federal land, which he has ignored.
On 27 March, more than two decades after the dispute first arose, the federal Bureau of Land Management began rounding up Mr Bundy's cattle with the intent to auction them off to pay his government fines, which have now reached $1.2m (£710,000).
Mr Bundy and his family have continued to resist. One of the sons, Dave, was arrested during a confrontation with federal law enforcement. Another, Ammon, was tasered after he kicked a police dog.
The video of the incident has served as a rallying cry for pro-Bundy protestors, many associated with right-wing militia groups. They have flocked to the Bundy ranch from across the region.
Some of the demonstrators were armed and threatened to block government action with force. One protestor said they had plans to put women and children at the front of the crowd so they would be among the first casualties if violence broke out.
On Saturday the government called off the cow-collecting operation and gave back the cows it had collected "because of serious concern about the safety of employees and members of the public".
The Las Vegas Review-Journal editors write that federal officials are "behaving like thugs loyal to a tin-pot dictator, not public servants who swore to support and defend the US Constitution".
They say that this dispute is about more than tortoises and grazing fees.
"It's about the power of environmentalists and their federal allies to erase a way of life they disagree with," they write. "It's about the federal government's control over most of the land in the West - and 86% of Nevada - and its inability to manage all that land in a competent and productive fashion."
They conclude:
No doubt plenty of city dwellers are laughing at the rubes in ranching country over their disgust with the federal government... But this desert drama is the just the latest front in the decades-long government assault on all of our rights. If we don't defend them, eventually we'll lose them. Then the joke will be on us.
The federal government employs both patriots and tyrants, writes Townhall finance editor John Ransom. Concerned citizens need to ask federal officials to pick sides.
"We have to make it make it clear to the bureaucrats that there are only two sides in the war the federal government is waging upon the rest of us," he says. "There is the right, and there is the wrong. And it's no longer sufficient to say you're just following orders."
Legally, writes Power Line Blog's John Hinderaker, Mr Bundy "doesn't have a leg to stand on". He argues that Americans like Mr Bundy deserve sympathy, however.
"Their way of life is one that, frankly, is on the outs," he says.
They don't develop apps. They don't ask for food stamps. It probably has never occurred to them to bribe a politician. They don't subsist by virtue of government subsidies or regulations that hamstring competitors. They aren't illegal immigrants. They have never even gone to law school. So what possible place is there for the Bundys in the Age of Obama?
This confrontation is not about freedom, the Constitution or some idealised rancher way of life, others argue. What is at issue here, they say, is a disturbing precedent set by Mr Bundy's continued flouting of legal authority.
What happens next, wonders the Las Vegas Review-Journal's Steve Sebelius.
"A court order that's not enforced by the federal government is simply another piece of paper," he writes. "It's entirely likely ... that the government will once again face off with Bundy and his militia gang, and that the threat of violence will once again rear its head."
Dallas Hyland writes in Utah's St George News that this could be the start of a growing trend:
The stand-down was necessary to prevent bloodshed, but it must be recognized that if Bundy and a multitude of his supporters, militia friends, and even family members who broke the law, are allowed to go unpunished, anarchy will follow. Other groups, emboldened by the appearance of forcing a stand-down, will only continue to gain momentum. And furthermore, law enforcement as a whole will be rendered impotent as average people with disputes with current laws begin to wonder if they too can call a militia in to force the police to leave them alone.
The pro-Bundy camp is claiming victory for now, but the federal government is not throwing in the towel.
"It's not over," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada. "We can't have an American people that violate the law and then just walk away from it."
As tanks roll through eastern Ukraine, is a rebellion brewing in Nevada?
Here is the article from The Blaze cited by BBC regarding women and children used as shields.
Former Arizona Sheriff Richard Mack revealed on Monday that he and other organizers who traveled to Clark County, Nev., to support Cliven Bundy during his land dispute with the feds planned to put women on the front lines in case the “rogue federal officers” started shooting.
Mack made the chilling revelation on Fox News’ “The Real Story” Monday, two days after the tense standoff between Bundy and the federal government came to a peaceful end.
“We were actually strategizing to put all the women up at the front,” he said. “If they are going to start shooting, it’s going to be women that are going to be televised all across the world getting shot by these rogue federal officers.”
Mack apparently identifies with the Tea Party and claims to have spoken at numerous rallies. He also appeared on MSNBC’s “Hardball” with host Chris Matthews to promote the movement.
Mack was elected as Graham County sheriff in 1988 and he served two terms until 1997. The former sheriff also reportedly fought against the so-called “Brady Bill,” a 1993 gun control law that instituted federal background checks on firearms purchasers in the United States.
“Mack has been a consultant on numerous cases regarding police abuse, brutality, and other misconduct by public officials. He has joined with other members of the law enforcement community to speak out in favor of drug policy reform,” according to his website.
The fight between Bundy and the Bureau of Land Management widened into a debate about states’ rights and federal land-use policy. Bundy does not recognize federal authority on land he insists belongs to Nevada.
On Saturday, the bureau released about 400 head of cattle it had seized from Bundy back to him only hours after announcing a premature halt to the roundup due to safety concerns. The operation, expected to take up to a month, ended after only a week.
The cattle were freed after hundreds of states’ rights protesters, some of them armed militia members, showed up at corrals outside Mesquite to demand the animals’ release. Las Vegas Police Lt. Dan Zehnder told The Associated Press that Clark County Sheriff Doug Gillespie was able to negotiate a resolution after talking with Bundy.
BLM filed a new complaint in U.S. court in Las Vegas in May 2012 seeking an injunction to prevent what it called Bundy's continued trespassing, and Judge Lloyd George issued another order last July authorizing the agency to impound the cattle.
Considering that Bundy and his family have planted pipe bombs at BLM offices, and invited armed militia members to help him, he and his family should be banned from all federal land for life. The hardworking BLM employees do not deserve the abuse this DB and his family has given them. And if he still wants to be a rancher, then as a millionaire he should go buy his own range land.
Considering that Bundy and his family have planted pipe bombs at BLM offices, and invited armed militia members to help him, he and his family should be banned from all federal land for life. The hardworking BLM employees do not deserve the abuse this DB and his family has given them. And if he still wants to be a rancher, then as a millionaire he should go buy his own range land.
No IEDs, but Harry Reid is pretty involved. There's a reason people around the world question the US governments integrity. Bundy ranch isnt about tortoises or allegedly unpaid fees. It's about Harry Reid raising his personal wealth:
But do we have any evidence that Reid actually exercised that influence in the agency to get what he wanted? Well that brings us to claim number three: Supposedly the BLM had posted on their website that they needed to get the Bundy family off of the land to make room for the energy project, but the BLM has since removed the page. The website that made this claim posted a screen shot split into two files and a link to a text version of the page that someone had copied. This is pretty weak. Though it does seem to match the overall narrative here, this would never be admissible in court. But let's dig a little deeper shall we. What if there is a version of the site cached somewhere on the web? Let's try the way back machine on archive.org. Nope, no dice, the page was never cached on way back machine. Let's try google's cache... BINGO! Here it is folks. This is google's record of what used to be on the site.
"Non-Governmental Organizations have expressed concern that the regional mitigation strategy for the Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone utilizes Gold Butte as the location for offsite mitigation for impacts from solar development, and that those restoration activities are not durable with the presence of trespass cattle"
They specifically referred to the solar project as a justification to seize Cliven Bundy's cattle.
Funny thing, we found the mitigation strategy for the Dry Lake Solar Energy zone, and guess who wrote it? That would be the BLM. Pretty convenient, for Harry Reid isn't it?
Now I took a screen shot of the Google cache right away. As I'm compiling this information I go back and I look at it again an hour later and what do you know, somebody came and took the cached version down. Somebody is trying to cover this thing up and fast. But you know what, they missed one. I found this cached version of the page on archive.is. If you follow the link in the description to our website SCG News.com you'll find a direct link to this page. I highly recommend that each and every one of you go and verify its contents for yourself before someone has it taken down.
Click here to view the cached version of the page that the BLM was desperately trying to hide.
Or click here to get to that link from another path.
But even if they take this last link down they left trail. Google's server logs will still have a record of the exact date their cached snap shot was taken, chances are they still have that snap shot, and you know what? Even if someone tried to erase it completely, with modern technology It is very easy for forensic technicians to recover data like this even if it seems to be deleted from the system. The digital trace is still there. The BLM's servers and every computer involved also have a trail, and trying to remove that trail would leave an even bigger trail.
Spacemanvic wrote: No IEDs, but Harry Reid is pretty involved. There's a reason people around the world question the US governments integrity:
But do we have any evidence that Reid actually exercised that influence in the agency to get what he wanted? Well that brings us to claim number three: Supposedly the BLM had posted on their website that they needed to get the Bundy family off of the land to make room for the energy project, but the BLM has since removed the page. The website that made this claim posted a screen shot split into two files and a link to a text version of the page that someone had copied. This is pretty weak. Though it does seem to match the overall narrative here, this would never be admissible in court. But let's dig a little deeper shall we. What if there is a version of the site cached somewhere on the web? Let's try the way back machine on archive.org. Nope, no dice, the page was never cached on way back machine. Let's try google's cache... BINGO! Here it is folks. This is google's record of what used to be on the site.
"Non-Governmental Organizations have expressed concern that the regional mitigation strategy for the Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone utilizes Gold Butte as the location for offsite mitigation for impacts from solar development, and that those restoration activities are not durable with the presence of trespass cattle"
They specifically referred to the solar project as a justification to seize Cliven Bundy's cattle.
Funny thing, we found the mitigation strategy for the Dry Lake Solar Energy zone, and guess who wrote it? That would be the BLM. Pretty convenient, for Harry Reid isn't it?
Now I took a screen shot of the Google cache right away. As I'm compiling this information I go back and I look at it again an hour later and what do you know, somebody came and took the cached version down. Somebody is trying to cover this thing up and fast. But you know what, they missed one. I found this cached version of the page on archive.is. If you follow the link in the description to our website SCG News.com you'll find a direct link to this page. I highly recommend that each and every one of you go and verify its contents for yourself before someone has it taken down.
Click here to view the cached version of the page that the BLM was desperately trying to hide.
Or click here to get to that link from another path.
But even if they take this last link down they left trail. Google's server logs will still have a record of the exact date their cached snap shot was taken, chances are they still have that snap shot, and you know what? Even if someone tried to erase it completely, with modern technology It is very easy for forensic technicians to recover data like this even if it seems to be deleted from the system. The digital trace is still there. The BLM's servers and every computer involved also have a trail, and trying to remove that trail would leave an even bigger trail.
And what part of this, if any, suddenly makes the cattle legal?
Spacemanvic wrote: No IEDs, but Harry Reid is pretty involved. There's a reason people around the world question the US governments integrity:
But do we have any evidence that Reid actually exercised that influence in the agency to get what he wanted? Well that brings us to claim number three: Supposedly the BLM had posted on their website that they needed to get the Bundy family off of the land to make room for the energy project, but the BLM has since removed the page. The website that made this claim posted a screen shot split into two files and a link to a text version of the page that someone had copied. This is pretty weak. Though it does seem to match the overall narrative here, this would never be admissible in court. But let's dig a little deeper shall we. What if there is a version of the site cached somewhere on the web? Let's try the way back machine on archive.org. Nope, no dice, the page was never cached on way back machine. Let's try google's cache... BINGO! Here it is folks. This is google's record of what used to be on the site.
"Non-Governmental Organizations have expressed concern that the regional mitigation strategy for the Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone utilizes Gold Butte as the location for offsite mitigation for impacts from solar development, and that those restoration activities are not durable with the presence of trespass cattle"
They specifically referred to the solar project as a justification to seize Cliven Bundy's cattle.
Funny thing, we found the mitigation strategy for the Dry Lake Solar Energy zone, and guess who wrote it? That would be the BLM. Pretty convenient, for Harry Reid isn't it?
Now I took a screen shot of the Google cache right away. As I'm compiling this information I go back and I look at it again an hour later and what do you know, somebody came and took the cached version down. Somebody is trying to cover this thing up and fast. But you know what, they missed one. I found this cached version of the page on archive.is. If you follow the link in the description to our website SCG News.com you'll find a direct link to this page. I highly recommend that each and every one of you go and verify its contents for yourself before someone has it taken down.
Click here to view the cached version of the page that the BLM was desperately trying to hide.
Or click here to get to that link from another path.
But even if they take this last link down they left trail. Google's server logs will still have a record of the exact date their cached snap shot was taken, chances are they still have that snap shot, and you know what? Even if someone tried to erase it completely, with modern technology It is very easy for forensic technicians to recover data like this even if it seems to be deleted from the system. The digital trace is still there. The BLM's servers and every computer involved also have a trail, and trying to remove that trail would leave an even bigger trail.
And what part of this, if any, suddenly makes the cattle legal?
Considering all the BS going on in this story, How do you know the charges against bundy are legit
You cant know the charges are legit. This government has lost a certain amount of credibility. I think people are coming around to the idea they've had enough. If OWS had any legitimacy, they may have reached that point first.
I'm with Space somewhat Well i think we're in the same lane. If the land was federalized for the Desert Tortoise then why is it being re-tasked for the Solar Panel Factory. Wait. Is that at another place or same area?
Jihadin wrote: I'm with Space somewhat Well i think we're in the same lane. If the land was federalized for the Desert Tortoise then why is it being re-tasked for the Solar Panel Factory. Wait. Is that at another place or same area?
They want to relocate the tortoise to bundies place
18 points of how the illegal cattle has impacted the area.
One single point is "an NGO is worried that it might impact the mitigation strategy of the environmental impact of a Solar Energy Zone".
None of the 18 points change the fact that they are illegal cattle and that Bundy has convinced large amount of idiots to break the law for him and to assault cops.
People want to hate the government so badly, that they become unreasonable. That doesn't make the government look bad, it just makes the supporters look like idiots.
You cannot handle the Desert Tortoise For if you pick them up they will pee themselves thereby they might stand a very good chance of dying of dehydration. No lie. We have the same thing at NTC. A huge desert expanse where armor track vehicles rolling all over the place doing combat exercises.
Jihadin wrote: You cannot handle the Desert Tortoise For if you pick them up they will pee themselves thereby they might stand a very good chance of dying of dehydration. No lie. We have the same thing at NTC. A huge desert expanse where armor track vehicles rolling all over the place doing combat exercises.
Well it was from the BLM pdf I linked earlier page 36 I think.
Well it is a state he is massively involved in, so just about anything large will involve him. Just because he isn't liked on a national level doesn't mean that the feelings on the state level are the same.
whembly wrote: Huh? I thought the whole Solar Power thingy was debunked (as it was shelved).
O.o
This is ANOTHER project Reid is involved in.
Truncated video, boiled down to the important parts. At least give it a view before commenting, asking for intellectual honesty here gang. Leave your Left/Right leanings at the door, give this a tumble Start at the 4:22 mark, seems that youtube clipping isnt working in this forum:
I don't give a feth what illegally trespassing cattle get in the way off. They are still illegally trespassing cattle.
That's the issue that gets ignored. But I guess we are fine with criminals as long as they get in the way of something or someone we don't like...
As an aside, arguing this issue on a more "interesting" gun related sight has brought out the militia types. Their argument is essentially: all the courts represent the federal government, and that the federal government is out to get us. Thanks OBAMA! Its difficult to argue when basic assumptions like "is the US government legitimate" are disputed.
Spacemanvic wrote: You cant know the charges are legit. This government has lost a certain amount of credibility. I think people are coming around to the idea they've had enough. If OWS had any legitimacy, they may have reached that point first.
So what. H wasn't paying the fees. His cattle are tresspassing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Spacemanvic wrote: You cant know the charges are legit. This government has lost a certain amount of credibility. I think people are coming around to the idea they've had enough. If OWS had any legitimacy, they may have reached that point first.
So what. He wasn't paying the fees. His cattle are tresspassing.
Spacemanvic wrote: You cant know the charges are legit. This government has lost a certain amount of credibility. I think people are coming around to the idea they've had enough. If OWS had any legitimacy, they may have reached that point first.
So what. H wasn't paying the fees. His cattle are tresspassing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Spacemanvic wrote: You cant know the charges are legit. This government has lost a certain amount of credibility. I think people are coming around to the idea they've had enough. If OWS had any legitimacy, they may have reached that point first.
So what. He wasn't paying the fees. His cattle are tresspassing.
If the fees aren't legit, he doesn't owe them a dollar
whembly wrote: Um... the OWS pretty much had their way during the protest. They wouldn't leave.
At least some cities had OWS sites torn apart by riot police and tear gas/water canons used on people.
Apparently OWS's failing was prioritizing construction of a library instead of an armoury.
Guess they didn't get far enough along the tech tree...
But having read through this, I'm surprised how many people are okay with people breaking the law as long as they're heavily armed enough to give law enforcement cause for concern. Like... that's the exact opposite of okay in my opinion.
Hopefully some others are correct and a bunch of people end up arrested (for completely legit reasons and with thoroughly documented evidence) for doing absolutely ridiculous stuff like threatening people with firearms and whatnot.
It doesn't matter how mean they're being, this was started by someone breaking the law, and having a bunch of buddies show up with guns doesn't make those actions any less illegal.
I'm going to go ahead and assume that they are legit.
To do otherwise would mean that I am putting my faith in people that post 18 examples of how the cattle is causing problems only to ignore 17 of the examples that they just posted.
d-usa wrote: I'm going to go ahead and assume that they are legit.
To do otherwise would mean that I am putting my faith in people that post 18 examples of how the cattle is causing problems only to ignore 17 of the examples that they just posted.
To do otherwise would throw your argument to pieces.
d-usa wrote: I'm going to go ahead and assume that they are legit.
To do otherwise would mean that I am putting my faith in people that post 18 examples of how the cattle is causing problems only to ignore 17 of the examples that they just posted.
To do otherwise would throw your argument to pieces.
Says the man so paranoid that he ignores his own links.
d-usa wrote: I'm going to go ahead and assume that they are legit.
To do otherwise would mean that I am putting my faith in people that post 18 examples of how the cattle is causing problems only to ignore 17 of the examples that they just posted.
To do otherwise would throw your argument to pieces.
Says the man so paranoid that he ignores his own links.
So, you think this government has NEVER lied before or hid things? At all?
If the government is doing it then its going to skewer everything into its favor.
Example be EPA trying to enforce two barracks full of soldiers to move one hundred meters away from a nesting Wood Cockaded Woodpecker at Ft Bragg. Before the birds got comfy the tree was removed at Oh Dark thirty something
Oh Wait
FAA trying to close down Kandahar Airfield in Afghanistan being the emergency response vehicles were not enough to handle a airfield accident. Let's ignore the fact we're getting rockets, mortars, and insurgent attacks on the Airfield itself
Frazzled wrote: Some places should never be fought for. Chernobyl, the Sahara Desert, New Mexico, Hobokken. Nevada?
Hey now, Texan, learn your history. Your state has yet to successfully defeat mine throughout your lackluster invasion history.
This is true. New Mexico has the advantage of being a true deathworld. Even Texans die off there.
I rememebr the expense between Texas and Artesia. Miles and miles of rolling empty with buzzards. It was...otherworldly. I just knew that if the car broke down we were going to die.
New Mexico, the only land Aussie killer drop bears fear to tread.
The "Federal Government" Frazz He does not recognize the Federal Government He stop paying grazing rights to the feds being he started trying to pay the State the fee Went FUBAR at that point.
Jihadin wrote: The "Federal Government" Frazz He does not recognize the Federal Government He stop paying grazing rights to the feds being he started trying to pay the State the fee Went FUBAR at that point.
Considering it is Federal Land, and that there is an actual Federal Government, and that the state is part of that system, the whole argument it pants on head.
Jihadin wrote: The "Federal Government" Frazz He does not recognize the Federal Government He stop paying grazing rights to the feds being he started trying to pay the State the fee Went FUBAR at that point.
Considering it is Federal Land, and that there is an actual Federal Government, and that the state is part of that system, the whole argument it pants on head.
Exactly. If you don't recognize the federal government you're either a foreign alien or a traitor. Choose carefully. The gallows awaits.
Jihadin wrote: The "Federal Government" Frazz He does not recognize the Federal Government He stop paying grazing rights to the feds being he started trying to pay the State the fee Went FUBAR at that point.
Considering it is Federal Land, and that there is an actual Federal Government, and that the state is part of that system, the whole argument it pants on head.
Exactly. If you don't recognize the federal government you're either a foreign alien or a traitor. Choose carefully. The gallows awaits.
d-usa wrote: There has been zero proof that they lied about him not paying, considering that he admits that he hasn't paid.
He maintains he should be paying Nevada state. And has repeatedly tried to do so.
Its not state land. he knows it, Nevada said it. he's a joke and he's lying. its like me saying "well I tried to pay income taxes to the Confederate States of America. Its not my fault they wouldn't give me the correct mailing address or cash my checks der der derp."
Jihadin wrote: The "Federal Government" Frazz He does not recognize the Federal Government He stop paying grazing rights to the feds being he started trying to pay the State the fee Went FUBAR at that point.
Considering it is Federal Land, and that there is an actual Federal Government, and that the state is part of that system, the whole argument it pants on head.
Exactly. If you don't recognize the federal government you're either a foreign alien or a traitor. Choose carefully. The gallows awaits.
I heard Texas wanted out of the union.
Such a yankee. You heard incorrectly. We wanted you out of the nation of Greater Texas. You still haven't accepted our peaceful annexation of your country in 1845. learn to sing the Yellow Rose and get over it already.
Texas, the only nation in the world who's theme song is named after a famous "entertainment specialist."
"The British in India will be slaughtered. Then we will overrun the Moslems and force their "Allah" to bow to Kali. And then the Hebrew God will fall and finally the Christian God will be cast down and forgotten."
- Genghis Connie, on plans for the summer. 8th in her class you progs!
Jihadin wrote: The "Federal Government" Frazz He does not recognize the Federal Government He stop paying grazing rights to the feds being he started trying to pay the State the fee Went FUBAR at that point.
Considering it is Federal Land, and that there is an actual Federal Government, and that the state is part of that system, the whole argument it pants on head.
Exactly. If you don't recognize the federal government you're either a foreign alien or a traitor. Choose carefully. The gallows awaits.
I heard Texas wanted out of the union.
Such a yankee. You heard incorrectly. We wanted you out of the nation of Greater Texas. You still haven't accepted our peaceful annexation of your country in 1845. learn to sing the Yellow Rose and get over it already.
Texas, the only nation in the world who's theme song is named after a famous "entertainment specialist."
I already know the words to the yellow rose of Texas, heard elvis sing it often enough.
Gotta say, I'm agreeing with Fraz on this one. If you're on Federal land and you're not paying due to not being happy with how the system works you shouldn't really be surprised when the Feds roll over to tell you to stop it. You don't get to pick and choose what laws to follow.
Wow, this thread has taken a decidedly tin-foil hat turn since I last checked in...
Let's recap, shall we?
No, the land was not "federalized" for the tortoise. It was and always has been property of the United States government as per the stipulations of Nevada's entrance to the Union. He claims he has rights to his land because he ancestors ranched there in the 1870s. That's fine and dandy, but the state of Nevada entered the Union on October 31, 1864 (Nevada Day!). It was at this time that all “unappropriated land” became property of the federal government, as written in the Nevada State Constitution that was approved by voters, including the land he is laying claim to. Of course, the ridiculous claim he has in "believing in the sovereignty of the State of Nevada" while at the same time not even "recognizing the Federal Government as existing," directly contradicts the Nevada State Constitution, Article 1, Section 2:
All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for the protection, security and benefit of the people; and they have the right to alter or reform the same whenever the public good may require it. But the Paramount Allegiance of every citizen is due to the Federal Government in the exercise of all its Constitutional powers as the same have been or may be defined by the Supreme Court of the United States; and no power exists in the people of this or any other State of the Federal Union to dissolve their connection therewith or perform any act tending to impair, subvert, or resist the Supreme Authority of the government of the United States. The Constitution of the United States confers full power on the Federal Government to maintain and Perpetuate its existence, and whensoever any portion of the States, or people thereof attempt to secede from the Federal Union, or forcibly resist the Execution of its laws, the Federal Government may, by warrant of the Constitution, employ armed force in compelling obedience to its Authority.
He had a grazing lease with the BLM until they changed the conditions in 1993 (to have less than 150 cattle on the land) after the desert tortoise was placed on the list of federally protected species. He refused to do so and the BLM canceled his grazing lease. He took them to court and lost, disputed that ruling and lost again. Whether you like them or not, the BLM has exhausted every possible avenue to remove the cattle short of removing it themselves. In 2012, he was informed that the BLM would remove the cattle from the land and was ordered by the court not to interfere with the removal. He was also notified by the BLM that he could collect his cattle after they were removed from public lands. It was at this time that Bundy began threatening the BLM and its contractors with violence through a "range war." It is also worthy to note that at no time during any of the original legal proceedings regarding his cattle or the grazing lease, did he ever claim ancestry ownership of the land in question. There had also been issue wither overgrazing on this allotment before the entire thing started in 1993.
Another item of note:
If you get past your paranoia and read the PDF document, it specifically states that the area where the untagged, unbranded illegal cattle are grazing is to be kept the way it is as a response to the ecological impact the now-shelved solar array would have made to its location, which is not the land in question. Also, since the government owns and maintains the land in question, if they really wanted to use the land for mining, fracking, build a solar array, or another nonsensical thing has been flying around the internet, they could go ahead and do no matter what.
Spacemanvic wrote: It makes the governments actions very questionable, heavy handed, unethical and beyond the scope of their original mandate. Tyrannical in many ways.
Ignoring the hyperbole, what part of that article indicates that the BLM extended beyond its original mandate?
Jihadin wrote: The "Federal Government" Frazz He does not recognize the Federal Government He stop paying grazing rights to the feds being he started trying to pay the State the fee Went FUBAR at that point.
Considering it is Federal Land, and that there is an actual Federal Government, and that the state is part of that system, the whole argument it pants on head.
Exactly. If you don't recognize the federal government you're either a foreign alien or a traitor. Choose carefully. The gallows awaits.
Same was said after a fashion by the British to the Colonists.
Jihadin wrote: The "Federal Government" Frazz He does not recognize the Federal Government He stop paying grazing rights to the feds being he started trying to pay the State the fee Went FUBAR at that point.
Considering it is Federal Land, and that there is an actual Federal Government, and that the state is part of that system, the whole argument it pants on head.
Exactly. If you don't recognize the federal government you're either a foreign alien or a traitor. Choose carefully. The gallows awaits.
Same was said after a fashion by the British to the Colonists.
Spacemanvic wrote: It makes the governments actions very questionable, heavy handed, unethical and beyond the scope of their original mandate. Tyrannical in many ways.
Jihadin wrote: The "Federal Government" Frazz He does not recognize the Federal Government He stop paying grazing rights to the feds being he started trying to pay the State the fee Went FUBAR at that point.
Considering it is Federal Land, and that there is an actual Federal Government, and that the state is part of that system, the whole argument it pants on head.
Exactly. If you don't recognize the federal government you're either a foreign alien or a traitor. Choose carefully. The gallows awaits.
Same was said after a fashion by the British to the Colonists.
Wow.
As you can see, this hyperbole goes to 11... it's one hyperbolier.
We're cracking this guy for breaking the laws and the Federal Government pretty good at it to
Edit
Better give an example before someone goes into the deep end while we're all still in the shallow...
Congress subpoening (sp) Louis Lerner email train. A couple of years for that to be turned over. If you got subpeona do you think the courts will aloow you a couple years to gather the info?
Jihadin wrote: We're cracking this guy for breaking the laws and the Federal Government pretty good at it to
Edit
Better give an example before someone goes into the deep end while we're all still in the shallow...
Congress subpoening (sp) Louis Lerner email train. A couple of years for that to be turned over. If you got subpeona do you think the courts will aloow you a couple years to gather the info?
The bankers committing fraud, boy the goverment sure went to town on those guys. And they stole billions
Another wasted bail out bah Like GM not going to sued due to the Federal Government bailing them out The ignition was bad in a hybrid that killed people.
Jihadin wrote: Another wasted bail out bah Like GM not going to sued due to the Federal Government bailing them out The ignition was bad in a hybrid that killed people.
The bankers stole billions, and got bailed out.
Bundy lets his cattle go onto government land, and they go after him with guns.
Jihadin wrote: The "Federal Government" Frazz He does not recognize the Federal Government He stop paying grazing rights to the feds being he started trying to pay the State the fee Went FUBAR at that point.
Considering it is Federal Land, and that there is an actual Federal Government, and that the state is part of that system, the whole argument it pants on head.
Exactly. If you don't recognize the federal government you're either a foreign alien or a traitor. Choose carefully. The gallows awaits.
Same was said after a fashion by the British to the Colonists.
EPIC MILITIA HORSE gak. Do you recognize the sovereignty of the USA? Do you even consider yourself a citizen of the US? If not get the feth out.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: I hear that Obama is planting a potato farm there.
Jihadin wrote: I've seen human shields. This is a very weak attempt of a human shield. I'm rooting for Bundy
He's OWS but in reverse way
I know you are making a joke, but that proposed tactic of theirs doesn't bother you?
Gotta tell you that story is a crock of gak.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: I'm with Space somewhat Well i think we're in the same lane. If the land was federalized for the Desert Tortoise then why is it being re-tasked for the Solar Panel Factory. Wait. Is that at another place or same area?
It was never about the tortoise. My brother in law does contract work down there and tells me those things are killed by the thousands during land development and no one cares. The federal government just cut funding for the desert tortoise sanctuary and killed most of the tortoises in it.
Armed federal agents defend turtle habitat but fail to secure our national borders.
Deserts always feel like my natural habitat, and I am very fond of them. That being said, I have, for my sins, spent a fair amount of time in Clark County, Nev., and it is not the loveliest stretch of desert in these United States, or even in the top twelve. Protecting the pristine beauty of the sun-baked and dust-caked outskirts of Las Vegas and its charismatic fauna from grazing cattle — which the Bureau of Land Management seems to regard as an Old Testament plague — seems to me to be something less than a critical national priority. At the same time, the federal government’s fundamental responsibility, which is defending the physical security of the country, is handled with remarkable nonchalance: Millions upon millions upon millions of people have crossed our borders illegally and continue to reside within them. Cliven Bundy’s cattle are treated as trespassers, and federal agents have been dispatched to rectify that trespass; at the same time, millions of illegal aliens present within our borders are treated as an inevitability that must be accommodated. In practice, our national borders are a joke, but the borders of that arid haven upon which ambles the merry Mojave desert tortoise are sacrosanct.
Strangely, many of the same people who insist that Mr. Bundy must be made an example of for the sake of the rule of law protest at the same time that it is not only impossible but positively undesirable for the federal government to deploy federal resources to rectify the federal crime of jumping the federal border.
Apparently, there are trespassers and there are trespassers. The citizens of this country, like those of any country, have an interest in the question of who is permitted to immigrate here and on what terms. Those interests and the ability to act in their furtherance are generally considered to be a substantial part of what we mean by “sovereignty.” Sovereignty has, historically, been regarded as a serious business. But if we judge the federal government by its actions rather than by the words of its functionaries, the defense of national sovereignty is many, many places down the federal to-do list from looking after tortoise welfare.
I myself am fairly liberal on the question of immigration and a sucker for desert creatures that have fewer than eight legs but at least two. There are intelligent and honorable people on both sides of our immigration disputes and on both sides of the Endangered Species Act. But juxtaposing the energetic and heavily armed attempted enforcement of the Endangered Species Act with the utter disregard that the federal government has shown for our immigration laws produces a political equation that is impossible to balance. You could be a strict rule-of-law man and demand rigid enforcement of both immigration laws and environmental laws. You could be a latitudinarian and prefer lax enforcement of both. You could make a case for focusing on legitimate federal priorities and be Attila the Hun on the border but Mr. Magoo on turtle turf. But what argument is there for taking a pass on actual federal responsibilities, among which defending the border looms large, while sending in the big guns against felonious specimens of beef on the hoof?[whembly: what argument indeed?]
The relevant facts are these: 1) Very powerful political interests in Washington insist upon the scrupulous enforcement of environmental laws, and if that diminishes the interests of private property owners, so much the better, in their view. 2) Very powerful political interests in Washington do not wish to see the scrupulous enforcement of immigration laws, and if that undercuts the bottom end of the labor market or boosts Democrats’ long-term chances in Texas, so much the better, in their view.
This isn’t the rule of law. This is the rule of narrow, parochial, self-interested political factions masquerading as the rule of law.[whembly: !! wat? that's kinda harsh]
If we are to have the rule of law, then, by all means, let’s have the rule of law: Shut down those federal subsidies and IRS penalties in states that did not create their own exchanges under the Affordable Care Act — the law plainly does not empower the federal government to treat federal exchanges identically to state exchanges. And let’s enforce the ACA’s deadlines with the same scrupulosity with which the IRS enforces its deadlines. Let’s see Lois Lerner and a few hundred IRS employees thrown in the hole for their misappropriation of federal resources, lying to Congress, etc. — and let’s at least look into prosecuting some elected Democrats for suborning those actions. And if you want to get to the real problem with illegal immigration, let’s frog-march a few CEOs, restaurateurs, and small-time contractors off to prison for violating our immigration laws — and they can carry a GM product-safety manager and a National Highway Traffic Safety Administration executive under each arm. Let’s talk about enumerated powers.[whembly: lol...he's being facetious, but we can dream eh?]
Tell you what: We can have a nice, interesting debate about the rule of law — but not while Lois Lerner is at large and Charlie Rangel is a prominent feature of public life. Not until a guy who owns a car lot in Waxahachie gets the same deal on his back taxes that Tim Geithner did. But I have the strangest feeling that a great many residents of Washington would not fare especially well under any robust interpretation of the rule of law. It all makes you not want to think too hard about the fact that President Obama has ordered the assassination of more than one U.S. citizen with no obvious legal authority for doing so.
Cliven Bundy may very well be a nut job [whembly:uh... he is a nutter dude...], but one thing is for sure: The federal government wouldn’t treat a tortoise the way it has treated him. Harassing a tortoise is a federal offense. But harassing the country? That’s federal policy.
Is it fair to say that we're living at a time that there 's too much law enforcement discretion?
Jihadin wrote: The "Federal Government" Frazz He does not recognize the Federal Government He stop paying grazing rights to the feds being he started trying to pay the State the fee Went FUBAR at that point.
Considering it is Federal Land, and that there is an actual Federal Government, and that the state is part of that system, the whole argument it pants on head.
Exactly. If you don't recognize the federal government you're either a foreign alien or a traitor. Choose carefully. The gallows awaits.
Same was said after a fashion by the British to the Colonists.
EPIC MILITIA HORSE gak. Do you recognize the sovereignty of the USA? Do you even consider yourself a citizen of the US? If not get the feth out.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: I hear that Obama is planting a potato farm there.
Thanks Obama!
I wish the government recognized the sovereignty of the United States and enforced our borders and our laws on illegal immigrants, didnt traffic weapons to drug cartels, didnt start wars on false pretenses, didnt stick its nose in our private lives and violate the Constitution at every turn. I am a United States Citizen. Just wish our government acted like they were too.
d-usa wrote: You know how I know that article is bs and not worth reading?
Because of the headline: Armed federal agents defend turtle habitat but fail to secure our national borders.
If the author starts off with a lie in the headline, then you can be pretty certain that the rest of the article is pure trash.
Agree... and it is full of lies like: "and if that diminishes the interests of private property owners" - Nothing in this case has to do with private property, just because Bundy (wrongly) believes it to be his private property, it isn't. it never has been, it never will be. This is not a case about imminent domain. It is about a crazy, violent deadbeat squatting on public land he has no right to be on.
and "Other people are breaking the law far worse than me, so I shouldn't be held accountable for my crimes" is not a valid defense.
He is arguing from a false premise right off the bat and using lies to fit his agenda.
d-usa wrote: You know how I know that article is bs and not worth reading?
Because of the headline: Armed federal agents defend turtle habitat but fail to secure our national borders.
If the author starts off with a lie in the headline, then you can be pretty certain that the rest of the article is pure trash.
Agree... and it is full of lies like: "and if that diminishes the interests of private property owners" - Nothing in this case has to do with private property, just because Bundy (wrongly) believes it to be his private property, it isn't. it never has been, it never will be. This is not a case about imminent domain. It is about a crazy, violent deadbeat squatting on public land he has no right to be on.
and "Other people are breaking the law far worse than me, so I shouldn't be held accountable for my crimes" is not a valid defense.
He is arguing from a false premise right off the bat and using lies to fit his agenda.
And how dare the BLM do their job when the Border Patrol and Immigration don't do theirs. That's like saying that McDonald's shouldn't be allowed to make a burger because they burned your food at Burger King.
Everything about that article is pants-on-head stupid, but people will believe anything as long as it fits their preconceived narrative of "there is no way the government could ever be right, there has to be a giant conspiracy and/or screw-up somewhere".
Not to mention this continued nonsense about the Border Patrol not doing a job that can't be done in the first place.
Who here thinks that going door to door and collecting every gun in the country will actually be effective in getting rid of all the tens of millions of guns in the US? Raise your hand.
You'll have the same amount of success trying to deport all of the tens of millions of illegal immigrants (and unlike guns, they multiply). Nothing is happening on that issue because no one wants amnesty granted, but its infeasible to deport that many people, the border between the US and Mexico is too long to police, and genocide is generally looked down upon these days.
Jihadin wrote: The "Federal Government" Frazz He does not recognize the Federal Government He stop paying grazing rights to the feds being he started trying to pay the State the fee Went FUBAR at that point.
Considering it is Federal Land, and that there is an actual Federal Government, and that the state is part of that system, the whole argument it pants on head.
Exactly. If you don't recognize the federal government you're either a foreign alien or a traitor. Choose carefully. The gallows awaits.
Same was said after a fashion by the British to the Colonists.
EPIC MILITIA HORSE gak. Do you recognize the sovereignty of the USA? Do you even consider yourself a citizen of the US? If not get the feth out.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: I hear that Obama is planting a potato farm there.
Thanks Obama!
I wish the government recognized the sovereignty of the United States and enforced our borders and our laws on illegal immigrants, didnt traffic weapons to drug cartels, didnt start wars on false pretenses, didnt stick its nose in our private lives and violate the Constitution at every turn. I am a United States Citizen. Just wish our government acted like they were too.
So pretty much doing what they're already doing in this situation? I mean, they're following the law throwing out someone who's illegaly been using federal land.
d-usa wrote: You know how I know that article is bs and not worth reading?
Because of the headline: Armed federal agents defend turtle habitat but fail to secure our national borders.
If the author starts off with a lie in the headline, then you can be pretty certain that the rest of the article is pure trash.
Agree... and it is full of lies like: "and if that diminishes the interests of private property owners" - Nothing in this case has to do with private property, just because Bundy (wrongly) believes it to be his private property, it isn't. it never has been, it never will be. This is not a case about imminent domain. It is about a crazy, violent deadbeat squatting on public land he has no right to be on.
and "Other people are breaking the law far worse than me, so I shouldn't be held accountable for my crimes" is not a valid defense.
He is arguing from a false premise right off the bat and using lies to fit his agenda.
Take a step back please... half the article the writer was being facetious.
It's not about, one department isn't enforcing the laws, why should BLM?
It's about how it appears that the various Federal department appears to have so much discretion on whether or not to enforces laws on the book.
d-usa wrote: You know how I know that article is bs and not worth reading?
Because of the headline: Armed federal agents defend turtle habitat but fail to secure our national borders.
If the author starts off with a lie in the headline, then you can be pretty certain that the rest of the article is pure trash.
Um... weren't they armed feds?
The turtle habitat part. The turtle habitat is only tangentally related to why the Feds were present. They were present because Bundy hasn't been paying for the land he's been using and refuses to leave.
Jihadin wrote: The "Federal Government" Frazz He does not recognize the Federal Government He stop paying grazing rights to the feds being he started trying to pay the State the fee Went FUBAR at that point.
Considering it is Federal Land, and that there is an actual Federal Government, and that the state is part of that system, the whole argument it pants on head.
Exactly. If you don't recognize the federal government you're either a foreign alien or a traitor. Choose carefully. The gallows awaits.
Same was said after a fashion by the British to the Colonists.
EPIC MILITIA HORSE gak. Do you recognize the sovereignty of the USA? Do you even consider yourself a citizen of the US? If not get the feth out.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: I hear that Obama is planting a potato farm there.
Thanks Obama!
I wish the government recognized the sovereignty of the United States and enforced our borders and our laws on illegal immigrants, didnt traffic weapons to drug cartels, didnt start wars on false pretenses, didnt stick its nose in our private lives and violate the Constitution at every turn. I am a United States Citizen. Just wish our government acted like they were too.
So pretty much doing what they're already doing in this situation? I mean, they're following the law throwing out someone who's illegaly been using federal land.
LordofHats wrote: Not to mention this continued nonsense about the Border Patrol not doing a job that can't be done in the first place.
Before moving forward... what is their job description?
Who here thinks that going door to door and collecting every gun in the country will actually be effective in getting rid of all the tens of millions of guns in the US? Raise your hand.
?? Not going to happen, so moot point?
You'll have the same amount of success trying to deport all of the tens of millions of illegal immigrants (and unlike guns, they multiply). Nothing is happening on that issue because no one wants amnesty granted, but its infeasible to deport that many people, the border between the US and Mexico is too long to police, and genocide is generally looked down upon these days.
I'm actually pretty damned liberal regarding the illegal immigrants... they're looking for a better life and I have no qualms about them seeking it here. Just sign the damned guest book when you get here.
As to your comment about the border is "too long to police". Bull. fething. gak.
It's not about, one department isn't enforcing the laws, why should BLM?
You say it's not.
We're talking about enforcing the laws... right?
It's about how it appears that the various Federal department appears to have so much discretion on whether or not to enforces laws on the book.
But then you say it is.
I'm saying, I'm not against what BLM is doing. That's fine as that rancher is a nutter (but, I gave him props for going up against the feds... any way you slice it, he has some cojones)
So... you applaud BLM for doing their job. Great. Good job. Me to.
Now you want to give me grief when I complain about other Federal Department NOT enforcing the laws?
d-usa wrote: You know how I know that article is bs and not worth reading?
Because of the headline: Armed federal agents defend turtle habitat but fail to secure our national borders.
If the author starts off with a lie in the headline, then you can be pretty certain that the rest of the article is pure trash.
Um... weren't they armed feds?
The turtle habitat part. The turtle habitat is only tangentally related to why the Feds were present. They were present because Bundy hasn't been paying for the land he's been using and refuses to leave.
I know that. The feds werent standing over the turtles "defending" them.
It's a fething headline. o.O You can only put so much in there...
As to your comment about the border is "too long to police". Bull. fething. gak.
The US Mexican Border is 2000 miles long. The coast line that can be used to get into the country is five times that.
The border cannot be secured. It's a pipe dream.
Depends on what your criteria "secured" means.
I think that's what get lost in the shuffle....
I don't think that advocates to "secure" the border means that we'll build a great wall of china over every square inch... It's simply a cause that we ought to spend more resources than what we're doing now. Ie, more border guards, tech, coast guards, port authorities...
I don't think that advocates to "secure" the border means that we'll build a great wall of china over every square inch... It's simply a cause that we ought to spend more resources than what we're doing now. Ie, more border guards, tech, coast guards, port authorities...
So then we're not selectively chosing to leave the border unsecured, we just don't spend enough money to secure it sufficiently?
The border patrols job is pushing a giant sombrero wearing boulder up a very steep mountain built of old discard maracas. The task granted to them is impossible. Throw all the money at it you want, they still won't be able to do their job. At this point giving them more money is in all likely hood a waste of resources.
I don't think that advocates to "secure" the border means that we'll build a great wall of china over every square inch... It's simply a cause that we ought to spend more resources than what we're doing now. Ie, more border guards, tech, coast guards, port authorities...
So then we're not selectively chosing to leave the border unsecured, we just don't spend enough money to secure it sufficiently?
You got it.
The border patrols job is pushing a giant sombrero wearing boulder up a very steep mountain built of old discard maracas. The task granted to them is impossible. Throw all the money at it you want, they still won't be able to do their job. At this point giving them more money is in all likely hood a waste of resources.
Uh huh... take a look at how Mexico enforces their immigration laws and come back to me with that one.
It's a fething headline. o.O You can only put so much in there...
You can start with the truth. If you can't do that, then you're not credible.
See... you want to nitpick.
Yet, you don't want to engage me on a tangent...
Because border security has feth-all to do with Bundy breaking the law.
You're still missing it...
I'll rephrase... isn't it interesting that the various Federal departments appears to have so much discretion on whether or not to enforce laws on the book?
I'll rephrase... isn't it interesting that the various Federal departments appears to have so much discretion on whether or not to enforce laws on the book?
You're still missing it...
This still has feth-all to do with Bundy breaking the law unless you are arguing that he shouldn't be persecuted because somebody somewhere else isn't enforcing some other law.
I'll rephrase... isn't it interesting that the various Federal departments appears to have so much discretion on whether or not to enforce laws on the book?
It is not discretion, a lot of it is due process, funding and authority.
In this case, the situation has worked through lawsuits and due process for 20 years, they have the funding to implement it and the authority. You are comparing one person getting pulled over for speeding to enforced speed cameras on every corner of every street for the entire state... You can say by not enforcing speeding laws by hundreds of thousands of speed cameras but still pulling people over manually, you are 'not enforcing' laws based upon discretion and no one should ever get a speeding ticket ever until everyone always gets a speeding ticket.
Turning this into an immigration debate is a total red herring... they are totally different issues.
Seeing as they keep finding their way up here, I don't think Mexico is having much luck (and their southern border is puny).
True... but the have all that coastline there.
I recall that the UN human rights complained to Mexico about their policy. (need to find that).
Let’s take a look at Mexico’s immigration policy.
Spoiler:
For instance, did you know that:
-Mexico deports more illegal aliens that the U.S. annually -Under Mexican law, it is a felony to be an illegal alien in Mexico
Or that immigrants must – -Have the means to sustain themselves economically; -Not be burdens on society; -Be of economic and social benefit to society; -Be of good character and have no criminal records; and -Contribute to the general well being of the nation.
Mexico’s immigration policies also ensure that – -Authorities have a record of each foreign visitor; -Foreign visitors do not violate their visa status; -Foreign visitors are banned from interfering in the country’s internal politics; -Foreign visitors who enter under false pretenses are imprisoned or deported; -Foreign visitors violating the terms of their entry are imprisoned or deported; -Those who aid in illegal immigration will be sent to prison.”
Mexico welcomes only foreigners who will be useful to Mexican society: -Foreigners are admitted into Mexico “according to their possibilities of contributing to national progress.” (Article 32) -Immigration officials must ‘ensure’ that ‘immigrants will be useful elements for the country and that they have the necessary funds for their sustenance’ and for their dependents. (Article 34) -Foreigners may be barred from the country if their presence upsets ‘the equilibrium of the national demographics,’ when foreigners are deemed detrimental to ‘economic or national interests,’ when they do not behave like good citizens in their own country, when they have broken Mexican laws, and when ‘they are not found to be physically or mentally healthy.’ (Article 37) -The Secretary of Governance may ‘suspend or prohibit the admission of foreigners when he determines it to be in the national interest.’ (Article 38) -Mexican authorities must keep track of every single person in the country: -Federal, local and municipal police must cooperate with federal immigration authorities upon request, i.e., to assist in the arrests of illegal immigrants. (Article 73) -A National Population Registry keeps track of ‘every single individual who comprises the population of the country,’ and verifies each individual’s identity. (Articles 85 and 86) -A national Catalog of Foreigners tracks foreign tourists and immigrants (Article 87), and assigns each individual with a unique tracking number (Article 91). -Foreigners with fake papers, or who enter the country under false pretenses, may be imprisoned: -Foreigners with fake immigration papers may be fined or imprisoned. (Article 116) -Foreigners who sign government documents ‘with a signature that is false or different from that which he normally uses’ are subject to fine and imprisonment. (Article 116)
Foreigners who fail to obey the rules will be fined, deported, and/or imprisoned as felons: -Foreigners who fail to obey a deportation order are to be punished. (Article 117) -Foreigners who are deported from Mexico and attempt to re-enter the country without authorization can be imprisoned for up to 10 years. (Article 118) -Foreigners who violate the terms of their visa may be sentenced to up to six years in prison (Articles 119, 120 and 121). -Foreigners who misrepresent the terms of their visa while in Mexico – such as working with out a permit – can also be imprisoned. -Under Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony. The General Law on Population says, A penalty of up to two years in prison and a fine of three hundred to five thousand pesos will be imposed on the foreigner who enters the country illegally. (Article 123) -Foreigners with legal immigration problems may be deported from Mexico instead of being imprisoned. (Article 125) -Foreigners who ‘attempt against national sovereignty or security’ will be deported. (Article 126) -Mexicans who help illegal aliens enter the country are themselves considered criminals under the law. -A Mexican who marries a foreigner with the sole objective of helping the foreigner live in the country is subject to up to five years in prison. (Article 127) -Shipping and airline companies that bring undocumented foreigners into Mexico will be fined. (Article 132)”
I'll rephrase... isn't it interesting that the various Federal departments appears to have so much discretion on whether or not to enforce laws on the book?
You're still missing it...
This still has feth-all to do with Bundy breaking the law unless you are arguing that he shouldn't be persecuted because somebody somewhere else isn't enforcing some other law.
I'll rephrase... isn't it interesting that the various Federal departments appears to have so much discretion on whether or not to enforce laws on the book?
It is not discretion, a lot of it is due process, funding and authority.
In this case, the situation has worked through lawsuits and due process for 20 years, they have the funding to implement it and the authority. You are comparing one person getting pulled over for speeding to enforced speed cameras on every corner of every street for the entire state... You can say by not enforcing speeding laws by hundreds of thousands of speed cameras but still pulling people over manually, you are 'not enforcing' laws based upon discretion and no one should ever get a speeding ticket ever until everyone always gets a speeding ticket.
Turning this into an immigration debate is a total red herring... they are totally different issues.
This is what I get for not creating another thread...
I'm not defending Bundy... I'm on BLM's side for feth sake!.
Cool?
The article I posted was very facetious... but one thing stood out to me (I'm not bringing in the Bundy/BLM saga here with this question): isn't it interesting that the various Federal departments appears to have so much discretion on whether or not to enforce laws on the book? <--- on my part, maybe this should've been a separate thread.
I'll rephrase... isn't it interesting that the various Federal departments appears to have so much discretion on whether or not to enforce laws on the book?
You're still missing it...
This still has feth-all to do with Bundy breaking the law unless you are arguing that he shouldn't be persecuted because somebody somewhere else isn't enforcing some other law.
I'm. NOT. Defending. Bundy!
No, you are supporting him.
And in the process you managed to once again find some weird pro-government-is-bad article making a ridiculous point "Isn't it interesting that Bundy broke the law for decades and a court has found him guilty and ordered this action and isn't it interesting that the border hasn't been secured yet so why is the BLM not chasing Mexicans won't somebody please think of the citizen children" and completely latched onto it while ignoring the actual situation.
I'll rephrase... isn't it interesting that the various Federal departments appears to have so much discretion on whether or not to enforce laws on the book?
You're still missing it...
This still has feth-all to do with Bundy breaking the law unless you are arguing that he shouldn't be persecuted because somebody somewhere else isn't enforcing some other law.
I'm. NOT. Defending. Bundy!
No, you are supporting him.
And in the process you managed to once again find some weird pro-government-is-bad article making a ridiculous point "Isn't it interesting that Bundy broke the law for decades and a court has found him guilty and ordered this action and isn't it interesting that the border hasn't been secured yet so why is the BLM not chasing Mexicans won't somebody please think of the citizen children" and completely latched onto it while ignoring the actual situation.
I'll rephrase... isn't it interesting that the various Federal departments appears to have so much discretion on whether or not to enforce laws on the book?
You're still missing it...
This still has feth-all to do with Bundy breaking the law unless you are arguing that he shouldn't be persecuted because somebody somewhere else isn't enforcing some other law.
I'm. NOT. Defending. Bundy!
No, you are supporting him.
And in the process you managed to once again find some weird pro-government-is-bad article making a ridiculous point "Isn't it interesting that Bundy broke the law for decades and a court has found him guilty and ordered this action and isn't it interesting that the border hasn't been secured yet so why is the BLM not chasing Mexicans won't somebody please think of the citizen children" and completely latched onto it while ignoring the actual situation.
Whatever man... you go on and think that.
Let's review:
In some weird twisted way (and I was like this during OWS), it's nice to see Americans *pushing back* at the Feds every once in a while.
Sometimes I feel like people need to be reminded that the Feds works for us. knowhatimean?
That's fine as that rancher is a nutter (but, I gave him props for going up against the feds... any way you slice it, he has some cojones)
The article I posted was very facetious... but one thing stood out to me (I'm not bringing in the Bundy/BLM saga here with this question): isn't it interesting that the various Federal departments appears to have so much discretion on whether or not to enforce laws on the book? <--- on my part, maybe this should've been a separate thread.
You seem to think that the feds have the ability and authority to swoop in like the BLM is the second a boarder-related crime happens. The issue is, immigration situations are handled case by case, and have to have due process and often are tied up in bureaucracy and lawsuits exactly how this situation was. So think of it this way... it took 20 years to get to this point in regards to the FEDS acting... in most cases, immigration enforcement happens much faster than 20 years when all is said and done... so if anything, why did the BLM wait so long?
It isn't discretion, it is limiting factors of numbers of incidents, infrastructure to enforce, authority, due process, lawsuits and so on which make every individual enforcement potentially take decades to enforce or go missed all together.
Discretion is the Hawaiian police who would sleep with prostitutes because the prostitutes were asking for 'cop checks' before handling money assuming cops would never actually go through with sex. There is a huge difference between someone standing there and letting a crime to happen and the unknown but probable chance of crime happening because it is going unwatched.
@_@ Have you looked at the gulf coast line? It's nearly 10,000 miles of unpoliceability. Unless we honestly want to pay to post a border agent every fifty feet for 12,000 miles* they're going to get in no matter what we do. Mexico can deport all the immigrants it wants, it doesn't change the fact that they don't go into Mexico to live in Mexico, they go to Mexico to get into the US, and its working pretty well for them.
*Just for fun; That's over 1,250,000 border agents.
@_@ Have you looked at the gulf coast line? It's nearly 10,000 miles of unpoliceability. Unless we honestly want to pay to post a border agent every fifty feet for 12,000 miles* they're going to get in no matter what we do. Mexico can deport all the immigrants it wants, it doesn't change the fact that they don't go into Mexico to live in Mexico, they go to Mexico to get into the US, and its working pretty well for them.
*Just for fun; That's over 1,250,000 border agents.
So... no more border patrols. Let's terminate that department... since you say it's impossible.
We'd only save about 3 million dollars (or 300 mill?) or so.
whembly wrote: So... no more border patrols. Let's terminate that department... since you say it's impossible.
Honestly, as far as stopping immigrants goes, yeah. They're kind of not making an progress and progress is kind of impossible. On the whole drug war thing they're still useful but I think we should end the drug war so that would kabosh that too XD
We could always try Stephen Colbert's idea of a 3000 mile porch staffed with old people, but I suspect that would be more funny than effective.
whembly wrote: So... no more border patrols. Let's terminate that department... since you say it's impossible.
Honestly, as far as stopping immigrants goes, yeah. They're kind of not making an progress and progress is kind of impossible. On the whole drug war thing they're still useful but I think we should end the drug war so that would kabosh that too XD
We could always try Stephen Colbert's idea of a 3000 mile porch staffed with old people, but I suspect that would be more funny than effective.
We can't do that, the Weiner Legion is a WMD. It's inhumane
Of course you are all missing the obvious.
Annex Mexico, make them all US citizens. Cheap labor, smaller border to patrol, you might even get a decent soccer team out of it.
Is it sad that we'd probably have better spent all the money we put into Iraq and Afghanistan nation building Mexico? I have a sinking feeling that would have turned out a lot better for us
LordofHats wrote: Is it sad that we'd probably have better spent all the money we put into Iraq and Afghanistan nation building Mexico? I have a sinking feeling that would have turned out a lot better for us
This has to be one of the most insightful things I've seen on dakka.
LordofHats wrote: Is it sad that we'd probably have better spent all the money we put into Iraq and Afghanistan nation building Mexico? I have a sinking feeling that would have turned out a lot better for us
You got no complaints with me on that.... I still think it's in our best interest still is to do something like that. Not sure how we can do it with stepping on toes though... they're our neighbor afterall.
As to your comment about the border is "too long to police". Bull. fething. gak.
The US Mexican Border is 2000 miles long. The coast line that can be used to get into the country is five times that.
The border cannot be secured. It's a pipe dream.
It can be but it requires Will. After the first dirty bomb that goes off that will will appear instantaneously. I fear that will happen sooner than later (unless we get out of the ME of course).
We can't do that, the Weiner Legion is a WMD. It's inhumane
Of course you are all missing the obvious.
Annex Mexico, make them all US citizens. Cheap labor, smaller border to patrol, you might even get a decent soccer team out of it.
I and others have suggested this. One quarter of Mexico's population is here now (seriously not joking), so why not?
Bundy OFL (Occupy Federal land). If OWS can get away with breaking all sorts of Fed, State, Sanitation, City, Ordinance, and/or rules with no ramification. Why not Bundy
Jihadin wrote: Bundy OFL (Occupy Federal land). If OWS can get away with breaking all sorts of Fed, State, Sanitation, City, Ordinance, and/or rules with no ramification. Why not Bundy
Matty back
So far, he has gotten away with breaking all kinds of laws. Both him and his supporters.
Jihadin wrote: Bundy OFL (Occupy Federal land). If OWS can get away with breaking all sorts of Fed, State, Sanitation, City, Ordinance, and/or rules with no ramification. Why not Bundy
Matty back
Not to mention leave clean ups around of the multi million dollar level.
Jihadin wrote: Wait. Didn't someone get tazed? A pregnant woman was forced roughly downed? Or we forgetting that part?
I haven't seen the video of the woman so I can't speak to that, but I certainly saw the video of the man get tazed, after he parked an ATV in front of a truck, kicked a police dog, and was charging the officers who were telling him to halt. He didn't even get arrested despite that fact that legally, they probably could have shot him to death.
Are we really going to do this thing where we pretend we don't see the stuff that undermines our arguments?
This thread is truly one of the most amazing threads I've ever seen on Dakka. Literally 15 pages of "yeah, what he did was illegal, but".
The ATV parking/ is at around 53 seconds, and the dog kicking and charging is at 1:05.
If this is the video the pregnant woman gets knocked down in, I don't see it - there is a woman screaming she's pregnant at around 1:25 but I don't see anyone touch her. I'm not saying it did - or didn't - happen, just that I didn't see it.
1:00 Think we both agree Joe Billy Bob is the driver of the ATV that's a bit wedged. The LEO is being hardcore and keeping distance to get homie to move it
1:03 Watch/hear the Handler give a visual and verbal command to aggress
1:05 Joe Billy Bob does the kick
up to 1:08 Joe Billy Bob is kicking back the dog and got Tazed by the LEO that want him to move the ATV
Dog Handler at fault he triggers the Taze incident
See the one LEO driver side of truck just keeping calm? Talking? Hell he knew camera's were out lol
Hold one. Their all Rangers? Not Army Rangers but Park Rangers? PARK RANGERS!!!!! JEBUS HEBUS SAVUS their F'ing PARK RANGERS!!!!
I did not see Barb get thrown down so I cannot claim 110% she got thrown down...11 kids though...tough ole Betty
Jihadin wrote: 1:00 Think we both agree Joe Billy Bob is the driver of the ATV that's a bit wedged. The LEO is being hardcore and keeping distance to get homie to move it
1:03 Watch/hear the Handler give a visual and verbal command to aggress
1:05 Joe Billy Bob does the kick
up to 1:08 Joe Billy Bob is kicking back the dog and got Tazed by the LEO that want him to move the ATV
Dog Handler at fault he triggers the Taze incident
See the one LEO driver side of truck just keeping calm? Talking? Hell he knew camera's were out lol
Hold one. Their all Rangers? Not Army Rangers but Park Rangers? PARK RANGERS!!!!! JEBUS HEBUS SAVUS their F'ing PARK RANGERS!!!!
I did not see Barb get thrown down so I cannot claim 110% she got thrown down...11 kids though...tough ole Betty
If this is the video the pregnant woman gets knocked down in, I don't see it - there is a woman screaming she's pregnant at around 1:25 but I don't see anyone touch her. I'm not saying it did - or didn't - happen, just that I didn't see it.
Did I hear her correctly? Her argument was "Don't you threaten a woman. I'm pregnant, so you let that guy go!"?
Truthfully, the fact that a pregnant woman would put herself in a position where an aggressive confrontation is likely to take place is grossly irresponsible. I assume she later smoked a pack of cigarettes and downed a liter of Jack, may as well go for the trifecta.
Jihadin wrote: Wait. Didn't someone get tazed? A pregnant woman was forced roughly downed? Or we forgetting that part?
I haven't seen the video of the woman so I can't speak to that, but I certainly saw the video of the man get tazed, after he parked an ATV in front of a truck, kicked a police dog, and was charging the officers who were telling him to halt. He didn't even get arrested despite that fact that legally, they probably could have shot him to death.
Are we really going to do this thing where we pretend we don't see the stuff that undermines our arguments?
This thread is truly one of the most amazing threads I've ever seen on Dakka. Literally 15 pages of "yeah, what he did was illegal, but".
Jihadin wrote: Wait. Didn't someone get tazed? A pregnant woman was forced roughly downed? Or we forgetting that part?
I haven't seen the video of the woman so I can't speak to that, but I certainly saw the video of the man get tazed, after he parked an ATV in front of a truck, kicked a police dog, and was charging the officers who were telling him to halt. He didn't even get arrested despite that fact that legally, they probably could have shot him to death.
Are we really going to do this thing where we pretend we don't see the stuff that undermines our arguments?
This thread is truly one of the most amazing threads I've ever seen on Dakka. Literally 15 pages of "yeah, what he did was illegal, but".
Being English I don't know about Rosie Parks. But I was just following orders has never been a defense.
Rosa Parks sat at the front of a bus when black people were only allowed to sit at the back. This lead to black people boycotting the buses in Montgomery, Alabama. She became an icon and hero of the civil rights movements in the USA.
If this is the video the pregnant woman gets knocked down in, I don't see it - there is a woman screaming she's pregnant at around 1:25 but I don't see anyone touch her. I'm not saying it did - or didn't - happen, just that I didn't see it.
Did I hear her correctly? Her argument was "Don't you threaten a woman. I'm pregnant, so you let that guy go!"?
Truthfully, the fact that a pregnant woman would put herself in a position where an aggressive confrontation is likely to take place is grossly irresponsible. I assume she later smoked a pack of cigarettes and downed a liter of Jack, may as well go for the trifecta.
I am assuming you were also supportive of the police beating up OWS protestors.
Jihadin wrote: Wait. Didn't someone get tazed? A pregnant woman was forced roughly downed? Or we forgetting that part?
I haven't seen the video of the woman so I can't speak to that, but I certainly saw the video of the man get tazed, after he parked an ATV in front of a truck, kicked a police dog, and was charging the officers who were telling him to halt. He didn't even get arrested despite that fact that legally, they probably could have shot him to death.
Are we really going to do this thing where we pretend we don't see the stuff that undermines our arguments?
This thread is truly one of the most amazing threads I've ever seen on Dakka. Literally 15 pages of "yeah, what he did was illegal, but".
LordofHats wrote: Is it sad that we'd probably have better spent all the money we put into Iraq and Afghanistan nation building Mexico? I have a sinking feeling that would have turned out a lot better for us
Jihadin wrote: I'm starting to think there be a "Double Standards" on protests here
There are. OWS gets pepper sprayed and treated like criminals whereas this guy is actually a criminal and gets treated like a hero.
Maybe because OWS were criminals? Three reported deaths and four reported rapes arent enough? Not to mention willful destruction of property (both private and public), public indecency, and a whole host of safety and health violations?
Jihadin wrote: Wait. Didn't someone get tazed? A pregnant woman was forced roughly downed? Or we forgetting that part?
I haven't seen the video of the woman so I can't speak to that, but I certainly saw the video of the man get tazed, after he parked an ATV in front of a truck, kicked a police dog, and was charging the officers who were telling him to halt. He didn't even get arrested despite that fact that legally, they probably could have shot him to death.
Are we really going to do this thing where we pretend we don't see the stuff that undermines our arguments?
This thread is truly one of the most amazing threads I've ever seen on Dakka. Literally 15 pages of "yeah, what he did was illegal, but".
We disagree much but on this you're 100% spot on. You should see the more right wing boards. I don't get it at all...
Define a right-wing board for us frazzled. The boards I frequent are heavily Libertarian and Constitutionalist and call for smaller government, I dont see the hate mongering you alude to.
Townhall.com There are almost no libertarians or old school conservatives, just nutjobs that think the Tea Party are commies who want to watch the government burn. A few gun boards which are otherwise awesome but in the bowels of the OT (ironic that) the militia guys occasionally rise up.
Frazzled wrote: Some places should never be fought for. Chernobyl, the Sahara Desert, New Mexico, Hobokken. Nevada?
Hey now, Texan, learn your history. Your state has yet to successfully defeat mine throughout your lackluster invasion history.
This is true. New Mexico has the advantage of being a true deathworld. Even Texans die off there.
I rememebr the expense between Texas and Artesia. Miles and miles of rolling empty with buzzards. It was...otherworldly. I just knew that if the car broke down we were going to die.
New Mexico, the only land Aussie killer drop bears fear to tread.
I humbly accept your amusing comparison of a Tallarn-Catachan hybrid deathworld. It made me chuckle because, for a Texan, you're actually pretty spot on. You silly neighbors, you!
On topic, however, this BLM revolutionary stuff is getting out of hand. I've witnessed a few members of my small farming community literally saddle up horses and gas up the trucks to make an epic, albeit odd, armed crusade to Nevada.
Jihadin wrote: I'm starting to think there be a "Double Standards" on protests here
There are. OWS gets pepper sprayed and treated like criminals whereas this guy is actually a criminal and gets treated like a hero.
Maybe because OWS were criminals? Three reported deaths and four reported rapes arent enough? Not to mention willful destruction of property (both private and public), public indecency, and a whole host of safety and health violations?
And assaulting police officers, refusing to comply with a court order, failing to pay taxes then assaulting and obstructing representatives of the government who come to collect on those unpaid taxes etc. are not against the law?
I am assuming you were also supportive of the police beating up OWS protestors.
In the one incident where I objected to the police response to OWS the protesters were behaving peacefully, not likely armed, and weren't beaten.
In the incidents in which police did strike OWS protesters the protesters were being aggressive, and I fully support the right of police to defend themselves.
Maybe because OWS were criminals? Three reported deaths and four reported rapes arent enough? Not to mention willful destruction of property (both private and public), public indecency, and a whole host of safety and health violations?
So, is it fair to assume that you only want liberal criminals to be punished? Because Bundy is definitely a criminal, as is the guy that kicked the police dog and charged at a police officer.
The guy kicked the K9 after the command of "Attack" was giving.
1:02 the verbal and visual signal on camera
1:04 the guy kicking the dog.
I'm rooting for Bundy OFL Movement...Occupy Federa Land
The signal was given because the gentleman in question was advancing towards the other police officer after repeatedly being told to back down and get away.
Jihadin wrote: Negative. He was the ATV driver and the guy that Tazed him wanted him to move the ATV. Tazed him after the command on the dog was giving.
Jihadin wrote: Wait. Your saying he should not have advance to move his ATV or he should have? Or your seeing something different in the film?
I'm saying from the video, I didn't hear anyone say "move your ATV". I heard "Back away", and subject of tazing not backing away, but rather advancing.
The guy kicked the K9 after the command of "Attack" was giving.
1:02 the verbal and visual signal on camera
1:04 the guy kicking the dog.
I'm rooting for Bundy OFL Movement...Occupy Federa Land
I didn't hear the word "attack". I heard the phrase "Get back!" and possibly the command "Bite." but ultimately the protesters are at fault for assaulting police officers, so it doesn't really matter.
Though, given your last sentence, I don't think you really care about that.
I'm saying from the video, I didn't hear anyone say "move your ATV". I heard "Back away", and subject of tazing not backing away, but rather advancing.
I don't even know that anyone got tased. No one fell to the ground while convulsing, it may be possible that the the officer merely charged his taser without discharging the prongs, or did not possess a taser capable of discharging prongs.
Simply because a taser is audible does not indicate that a person was tased.
The guy kicked the K9 after the command of "Attack" was giving.
1:02 the verbal and visual signal on camera
1:04 the guy kicking the dog.
I'm rooting for Bundy OFL Movement...Occupy Federa Land
The signal was given because the gentleman in question was advancing towards the other police officer after repeatedly being told to back down and get away.
This, after his aunt, I believe, was jumped from behind and slammed into the ground.
He was pumped, he got tazed a couple of times I think and just tore the things out of his chest. You do not screw with family members down there. The men folk are damned protective.
Ranger Smithy the one that threw the lady down and wanted the guy to move his ATV. Times giving support it. Also the verbal from the Rangers support what I have giving.
Careful on "ASSUMING" Ouze. Where in the video can you debunk me?
Relapse wrote: My sister just told me that the Bundy's are having a barbque tonight for all their supporters and half the town where she lives is going.
You should really change your username from "Relapse" to "Anecdote".
That's common in "Country" towns. Hell if I was close I go to because its a BBQ. Though I would keep my distance from the militia members who seem to be itching for someone to engage them first. Still a family atmosphere of a BBQfest is pretty fun.
Need to round up a lot of OWS protestors that broke the law to.
BLM also went beyond the court order itself. They were to impound the cattle they rustled up....almost 1 mil on that phase
They were not to sell them out of State
They were not to kill them. One bull and a "iffy" bull
They were not to sell them within State.
I also believe the whoever was in charge of the Park Rangers at the incident needs to get slammed. No one was in charge of the Rangers.
Also the Park Ranger who threw the Lady down and afterwards Tazed the guy those was attacked by the dog on "command" from its Handler needs a a "Few days at the beach" Couple days suspension
Before someone come to defense of the K9 Handler why was not the 2nd team up there as well..no one was in charge at all.
Jihadin wrote: I do not think Federal Park Rangers are trained to handle a protest group.
This isn't a "protest group". This is a bunch of redneck yahoos.
Yes we know, and the OWS groups you loved so well are the blessing of civilization.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: That's common in "Country" towns. Hell if I was close I go to because its a BBQ. Though I would keep my distance from the militia members who seem to be itching for someone to engage them first. Still a family atmosphere of a BBQfest is pretty fun.
Dutch has a proven track record of talking without knowing anything about the subject he speaks of, especially in this case where I have several family members living in Overton.
d-usa wrote: Well, since the town supports him then why should anybody give a feth if lawful actions against him hurt them?
I agree... I hope the entire town starves and is destroyed by lack of tourism. They can reap what they sow by supporting a violent, deadbeat criminal and taking up arms and resorting to armed violence to help promote criminal activity and destruction of public land.
d-usa wrote: Well, since the town supports him then why should anybody give a feth if lawful actions against him hurt them?
I agree... I hope the entire town starves and is destroyed by lack of tourism. They can reap what they sow by supporting a violent, deadbeat criminal and taking up arms and resorting to armed violence to help promote criminal activity and destruction of public land.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Video showed who the aggressor's were
I was talking about the BLM's attempt to put our herds at risk by peddling Bundy's cattle in Utah and how it was told to go to hell by our commisioners based off what I had been told, but was informed the information I have is anectdotal. Damn, who would have thought people I know in the middle of things down there saw what was happening?
Cattle seized from public land in Nevada were once headed to Richfield for auction — but federal officials have changed their plans after Utah leaders argued the animals would threaten the state’s $1 billion livestock industry.
That's a wonderful explanation about how they violated and went beyond the court order...
d-usa wrote: Physical stamina doesn't make you any less redneck or ignorant though.
I'm not talking just physical stamina. Most of guys each know mechanics, welding, botony, vetinary science, animal behavior and training, camping, enviornmental skills, construction, electronics, basic EMT skills, etc. It all comes with being a farmer or rancher.
d-usa wrote: But they apperantly also still think that a county sheriff has jurisdiction over federal land and agents and that feds have to leave if he says "go".
It's like knowing about one thing doesn't mean you know about other things...
The ignorant redkneck comment, as though these people just roll around in the mud with pigs though, shows just how uninformed and foolish the people making them look.
d-usa wrote: But they apperantly also still think that a county sheriff has jurisdiction over federal land and agents and that feds have to leave if he says "go".
It's like knowing about one thing doesn't mean you know about other things...
The ignorant redkneck comment, as though these people just roll around in the mud with pigs though, shows just how uninformed and foolish the people making them look.
The ingorant redneck comment, in regards to the situation at hand, shows just how uninformed and foolisn the people are making themselves look in regards to their suppord of Bundy.
They have shown that they are in fact ignorant of the law, and I'm guessing that they do have red necks
d-usa wrote: But they apperantly also still think that a county sheriff has jurisdiction over federal land and agents and that feds have to leave if he says "go".
It's like knowing about one thing doesn't mean you know about other things...
The ignorant redkneck comment, as though these people just roll around in the mud with pigs though, shows just how uninformed and foolish the people making them look.
The ingorant redneck comment, in regards to the situation at hand, shows just how uninformed and foolisn the people are making themselves look in regards to their suppord of Bundy.
They have shown that they are in fact ignorant of the law, and I'm guessing that they do have red necks
Can't deny that, in the middle of the desert there! A few hours hiking in that place turns my daughters pretty dark since they're part Seminole, but me, I look like a lobster, even with sunscreen.
The more I read of this it sounds more and more like this Bundy character is a real American. He's using land that does not belong to him. He refused to work with the "owners" of the land. The owners of the the land kill and steel stuff from the intuder. Now the intuder summons a militia to protect something that does not belong to him.
This sounds vaguely familiar, like the 16-1700 maybe?
d-usa wrote: Physical stamina doesn't make you any less redneck or ignorant though.
I'm not talking just physical stamina. Most of guys each know mechanics, welding, botony, vetinary science, animal behavior and training, camping, enviornmental skills, construction, electronics, basic EMT skills, etc. It all comes with being a farmer or rancher.
d-usa wrote: Physical stamina doesn't make you any less redneck or ignorant though.
I'm not talking just physical stamina. Most of guys each know mechanics, welding, botony, vetinary science, animal behavior and training, camping, enviornmental skills, construction, electronics, basic EMT skills, etc. It all comes with being a farmer or rancher.
Apparently not the law, though.
Is this the Myth of Rural Virtue thread?
This is the way it is for most hard core farmers and ranchers. They have to learn this stuff or they'd go broke paying for all of that.
The more I read of this it sounds more and more like this Bundy character is a real American. He's using land that does not belong to him. He refused to work with the "owners" of the land. The owners of the the land kill and steel stuff from the intuder. Now the intuder summons a militia to protect something that does not belong to him.
This sounds vaguely familiar, like the 16-1700 maybe?
Occupy Wall Street
Arson
Occupy Fort Collins – Member arrested, $10 million in damage
Occupy Portland - Member arrested for throwing Molotov Cocktail
Occupy Seattle – Suspicious fire at Bank of America 2.7 miles from camp
Occupy Portland – Three men arrested with homemade grenades
Assault/Threats
Occupy SF – 12 assaults in 24 hours
Occupy LA – 4 assaults including two with knives
Occupy Philly – Man punches woman in the face
Occupy LA – Two assaults including setting someone on fire
Occupy Berkeley – Police respond to three assault calls per night
Occupy Wall Street – Three men threaten the life of a sexual assault victim
Occupy Lawrence – Punch thrown
Occupy Orlando – Knife fight sends man to hospital
Occupy Portland – Multiple assaults within a 24 hr. period
Occupy Toledo – Man assaults police officer after arrest
Occupy San Diego – Woman assaults cameraman
Occupy Victoria – Man dumps urine on city worker
Occupy Vancouver – Two police officers bitten during near riot
Occupy Oakland – Death threats
Occupy Austin – Man in Joker make-up arrested for brandishing knife
Occupy Oakland – Man sets his dog on reporter
Occupy Oakland – Man pulls a knife in camp
Occupy Wall Street – Photographer assaulted
Drugs/Dealing
Occupy Boston – Two drug busts in a week
Occupy Boston – Another drug arrest
Occupy Boston – Heroin dealers busted were living with 6 year old boy directly behind welcome tent
Occupy Portland – First hand account “Drugs. Selling…Heroin. Meth.”
Occupy Portland – Video of open drug use in the camp
Occupy Portland – “I get high“
Fraud
National Lawyer’s Guild member Ari Douglas pretends to be run over by a police scooter
Illness/Death
Occupy Santa Cruz – Ringworm outbreak
Occupy Atlanta – TB outbreakx
Occupy Wall Street – Zuccotti lung outbreak
Occupy New Orleans – Man discovered in tent had been dead 2 days
Occupy Portland – Body lice outbreak
Murder
Occupy Oakland – Fatal shooting
Public disturbance
Occupy Dallas – Protesters block bank entrance, 23 arrested
Occupy Vancouver – Mob with bullhorn enters bank
Occupy Wall Street – Protesters block bank entrance, four arrested
Occupier takes a bathroom break in the street
Occupy Vancouver – Occupiers disrupt debate, threaten riot when asked to leave
Occupy Long Beach – Group disrupts city council meeting
Occupy Boston – Three arrested for occupying Burger King
Occupy Oakland – Yelling and nonsense at Burger King
Occupy DC – Group storms AFP event, traps attendees inside
Rape/Sexual Assault
Occupy Philly – Man arrested for alleged rape
Occupy Wall Street – Two sexual assaults unreported to police
Occupy Wall Street – Man arrested for sexual assault, suspect in rape
Occupy Dallas – Sex offender allegedly rapes 14 year old
Occupy Ottawa – Sexual assaults go unreported to police
Occupy Lawrence – Sexual assault reported
Occupy Toronto – Foot sniffer arrested
Occupy Seattle – Man exposes himself to young girls
Occupy Portland – Sexual assault
Occupy Wall Street – Drunk gropes women in Zuccotti Park
Occupy Cleveland – Rape reported after an overnight stay
Occupy Glasgow – Possible gang rape
Occupy Baltimore – Multiple reports of harassment
Occupy Chicago – Man arrested for child porn
Occupy LA – Man charged with exposing himself to a child
Sedition
Occupy DC – Let’s have a coup by taking over the military
Ted Rall wants occupiers to choose the path of violence
Occupy DC – Mike Malloy incites crowd to cheer for President Bush’s execution
Suicide/Overdose
Occupy Burlington – Man kills himself with handgun
Occupy Salt Lake City – Man found dead with syringe in his tent
Occupy Vancouver – Young woman dies of cocaine and heroine overdose
Occupy OKC – Young man with history of drug abuse found dead Theft
Occupy Portland – Theft is ongoing
Occupy Boston – Store owner suffers 4 break-ins since camp began
Vandalism
Occupy Eureka – Protesters use local bank as a toilet
Occupy Portland – Two banks vandalized, promises of more to come
Occupy Oakland – Bank windows broken, Whole Foods vandalized, broken windows
Occupy Boston – Banks vandalized with anarchist, OWS graffiti
Occupy Portland – Spike in vandalism near camp
Occupy SF: ATMs being smeared with feces
Occupy Santa Fe: Banks vandalized with OWS-themed graffiti
Occupy San Diego – Vendors cart vandalized with bodily fluids
Occupy graffiti found on PA governor’s mansion
Throwing in
Camping over night in Federal Parks that are not meant to be
Protesting without license
Impeding traffic
If a couple donkey-caves in a large group makes the whole group criminal, then shouldn't we be thinking that all the people that showed up to support Bundy are also criminals?
Jihadin wrote: Let the guy protest all he wants. I'm just pointing out the double standards.
No, you're pointing out what YOU perceive to be double standards. What happened with OWS is ridiculous certainly, but let's not pretend that these two situations are really equivalent.
This whole Bundy thing is someone wrapping themselves up in the rhetoric of "patriot" groups to justify their nonsense.
Kanluwen wrote: What happened with OWS is ridiculous certainly, but let's not pretend that these two situations are really equivalent.
Packs of idiots who don't understand what they're combating making a mess for the sake of making a mess, in the belief it will effect some sort of change?
They sound pretty equivalent to me. Only one side was smart enough to bring guns.
Kanluwen wrote: What happened with OWS is ridiculous certainly, but let's not pretend that these two situations are really equivalent.
Packs of idiots who don't understand what they're combating making a mess for the sake of making a mess, in the belief it will effect some sort of change?
They sound pretty equivalent to me. Only one side was smart enough to bring guns.
I don't think "smart enough to bring guns" is the term I would have used.
Becuase he is. OWS really doesn't factor into it as they are separate events. It is also possible to think OWS were a bunch of idiots and also think Bundy and his supporters are as well.
This guy did a 21-year legal process about his rights to the land, lost, then when the forces of law and order came to give effect the court's decision he protested.
I do not care if he is a bad guy or not I'm rooting for him because I want to see how far this go. I've a feeling he's going to win in the Public eye and hence the Courts are going to look at this with a different perception.
I believe he is going to be more effective then OWS.
Did not OWS do what same thing? Act like a bunch of goddamned hooligans? Yeah. They did.
They held a protest. Cops busted a few yet POTUS and Democrats backed them.
Yeah, and the initial protests were pretty laid back. As time wore on it DID get out of hand in most of the areas where the "tent cities" formed. I don't see why it's such a surprise that the POTUS and Democrats would back the idea behind the initial movement which was better regulation and supervision of Wall Street.
And before you and Relapse jump all over my ass, I'd like to point out that I was not very pleased with how OWS was handled. It was a mess with no central message, no real leadership, nothing that would justify its existence as a movement.
For all intents and purposes it was the Liberal version of the Tea Party.
This guy protest. Few get busted by Park Rangers. Bundy a Republican. Yet he is portrayed as the bad guy.
He's portrayed as the bad guy because he is the bad guy, Jihadin. I don't know how you can claim to be so well informed on this case and argue it as much as you have and not realize that his case has been heard by the courts, it went through appeals--and in both instances it was found wanting.
This really is just as simple as someone wrapping themselves up in rhetoric and getting the loonies behind them.
And what is really amusing though is that the Park Rangers which you've been so free with accusations of "brutality" have actually been really laid-back. Oh boohoo, someone got tazed after they kicked a police dog.
Remember what happened with some of the OWS protestors? People getting pepper sprayed from a few feet away, police getting really trigger happy with "rubber" rounds, deaths from baton injuries,etc. That is brutality.
Any of the militias or the Bundy clan out there claiming brutality need to buck the hell up.
Jihadin wrote: I do not care if he is a bad guy or not I'm rooting for him because I want to see how far this go. I've a feeling he's going to win in the Public eye and hence the Courts are going to look at this with a different perception.
I believe he is going to be more effective then OWS.
He's not going to win. If anything, the lunatic protestors ruined any chance of that happening.
I do not believe I supported in anyway on here on him breaking the law have I? BLM screwed the pooch majorly on this
1. No one was in charge of the Park Rangers at the site
2. Should not have attempted to auction/sell his cattle
3 Should not have killed a bull and possibly a second one
4 Should not have brought the Desert tortoise in
5. Should have kept it Court
6. Should have put a lien on his house
7. Should have kept his Federal Tax returns every year he has not paid grazing rights.
Two Park Rangers screwed this up.
Edit
He might not win but a lot of attention is now on this guy and the perception of overstepping of the Federal Government. Harry Ried should have kept his mouth shut along with his son Rory. They made the situation worse and now its a spring of news stories..
He might not win but a lot of attention is now on this guy and the perception of overstepping of the Federal Government. Harry Ried should have kept his mouth shut along with his son Rory. They made the situation worse and now its a spring of news stories..
Contrary to some think, most people don't care what the Federal Government does, least of all to 'criminals.' Everyone here is infinitely more likely to be screwed by another citizen than they are to be screwed by the government. They see a bunch of idiots with guns protecting one moron's right to break the law, and short of a massacre, no one will care about the government's meager transgressions. They're going to be more alarmed by the flagrant insanity than the administrative silliness.
2. Should not have attempted to auction/sell his cattle
Why?
This is actually legal. The state regularly seizes property from criminals and auctions it. If anything the restraint shown by BLM is kind of remarkable. 20 years ago this would have turned into a full blown Mexican stand off with the FBI showing up with a lot more guys in black.
They don't need to have "someone in charge". Do you think Park Rangers need a babysitter or something?
You never held a Supervisory position of that nature have you Kan?
Court order was to just Impound his cattle Kan.
D-USA
You never watch the video eh
One idiot screwed it up. Backed up by many more idiots with guns.
1:02 into Ouze video shows the K9 Handler give the go command on the dog attack that set it off. That video showed no one holding weapons. Just smart phones.
0:30+ seconds into same video shows Margie on ground on Ouze video.
Relapse video shows the Ranger throwing down the Female.
Edit
Cattle Rustling though has a different Stigma in that area I believe. People won't buy the cattle in NV for fear of being Black Listed. That "Black list" I've no idea what type of list
They don't need to have "someone in charge". Do you think Park Rangers need a babysitter or something?
You never held a Supervisory position of that nature have you Kan?
Don't dodge the question. Why do you think there needed to be "someone in charge" there?
Court order was to just Impound his cattle Kan.
What do you think happens when you impound something? After a certain amount of time, it gets put up for auction.
D-USA
You never watch the video eh
One idiot screwed it up. Backed up by many more idiots with guns.
1:02 into Ouze video shows the K9 Handler give the go command on the dog attack that set it off. That video showed no one holding weapons. Just smart phones.
0:30+ seconds into same video shows Margie on ground on Ouze video.
Relapse video shows the Ranger throwing down the Female.
You keep saying that it "shows the K9 handler giving the go command", but I'm still not hearing it. The "go command" is not standardized for K9 handling, but hey what do I know about police procedure and dog handling.
Not sure why you're getting all up in arms about the "Ranger throwing down the female" here though. If you're going to be belligerent and get up in a LEO's face, you're going to get thrown down.
You don't get to cry "I'M PREGNANT!" after you start crap like it's some kind of magical time out.
Don't dodge the question. Why do you think there needed to be "someone in charge" there?
No one was in charge of the Rangers Watch the video Ouze posted.
Then watch the video's from OWS police lines
Compare them both
No one was armed on the protesters side. just camera's which is more damaging
Golden Rule Number One
Do not lose professionalism
Edit II
Not sure why you're getting all up in arms about the "Ranger throwing down the female" here though. If you're going to be belligerent and get up in a LEO's face, you're going to get thrown down.
You don't get to cry "I'M PREGNANT!" after you start crap like it's some kind of magical time out.
You didn't watch the video. Ranger was behind her.
The same Ranger that fired his tazer the same that threw down the female. He escalated the situation. So you agree the K9 unit attacked first?
I never went with the "I'm pregnant" bit being there's no video of it. just the protesters words that they did.
Edit III
Black Listed
The Cattle Range Internet marketing option is based on an honor system...
In the cattle industry, deals can still be made on the strength of a handshake or a verbal commitment made over the telephone.
Accordingly, we rely on this high level of integrity and trust sellers to report sales and remit payment as agreed.
.However, we have found there are exceptions and have procedures in place to aid in discovering cattle SOLD via TCR but not reported...
Those found not adhering to the honor system will be placed in the "Black-List" below.
Cattle seized from public land in Nevada were once headed to Richfield for auction — but federal officials have changed their plans after Utah leaders argued the animals would threaten the state’s $1 billion livestock industry.
Nothing in that sentence, nor anything in that article, explains your weird statement that they went beyond the court order.
Moreover, in its 1998 Order, the Court acknowledged that the BLM is explicitly authorized to impound and dispose of the unauthorized livestock after written notice to Bundy of its intent to impound.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the United States’ Motion to Enforce Injunction (Doc. #50) is hereby GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Bundy is permanently enjoined from trespassing on the former Bunkerville Allotment. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the United States is entitled to protect the former Bunkerville Allotment against this trespass, and all future trespasses by Bundy. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Bundy shall remove his livestock from the former Bunkerville Allotment within 45 days of the date hereof, and that the United States is entitled to seize and remove to impound any of Bundy’s cattle that remain in trespass after 45 days of the date hereof.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the United States is entitled to seize and remove to impound any of Bundy’s cattle for any future trespasses, provided the United States has complied with the notice provisions under the governing regulations of the United States Department of the Interior. ///
And there are even regulations for the BLM when it comes to impounding cattle:
§4150.4 Impoundment and disposal.
Unauthorized livestock remaining on the public lands or other lands under Bureau of Land Management control, or both, after the date set forth in the notice and order to remove sent under §4150.2 may be impounded and disposed of by the authorized officer as provided herein.
§4150.4-5 Sale.
If the livestock are not redeemed on or before the date and time fixed for their sale, they shall be offered at public sale to the highest bidder by the authorized officer under these regulations or, if a suitable agreement is in effect, by the State. If a satisfactory bid is not received, the livestock may be reoffered for sale, condemned and destroyed or otherwise disposed of under these regulations, or if a suitable agreement is in effect, in accordance with State Law.
I still see zero wrong with how they handled that video. Police legitimately need to escalate sometimes based on the situation.
If you were in a city, and kicked a police dog, you would get a nice arm wound and possibly a bullet in your head for your trouble... and everyone would have been happy the police did it. If you were a minority it wouldn't even make the news outside 'criminal attacks cop. now dead'
So what that someone illegally interfering with a federal execution of a court order was thrown tot he ground... Good? She is lucky they didn't do more and she wasn't taken away in handcuffs. They should have done more than taze her. They should have beanbaged them to the face until they were unconscious... they had the right to protest, not violently block the feds. In some states, they would have arrested her for putting her unborn baby at risk and pretty much restrained her to a hospital bed in a prison for the rest of her pregnancy to protect her unborn fetus. Then taken her baby once born and put her in jail.
There was ample legitimate ground to arrest every one of them, and to do so in such a way which used force. These protesters got away with a helluva lot, things the rest of us would not have gotten away with in similar situations. They could have shown up with crowd control methods, incapacitated all of them via multiple forceful actions and arrested them all and been perfectly justified.
They decided to defend themselves and leave opposed to tangle with a violent armed angry mob.
And they could have had drones shot dead every one of Bundy's cattle and been fully within their rights. I would have supported that. Bundy's cattle is still illegally trespassing today.
Communities that can't operate in harmony with the rest of the world due to hate, bigotry and extreme xenophobia of the government should be destroyed.
You act like you never went into court and said "your honor, it's totally true I was driving 75 miles per hour in a 30 mile per hour zone, but in my defense, I've been speeding like that for a really long time, and the cop that ticketed me was a real jerk, and look, all these spectators in the court gallery really like me"; and then - case dismissed!
I mean, that's how the justice system works here now.
nkelsch wrote: I still see zero wrong with how they handled that video. Police legitimately need to escalate sometimes based on the situation.
If you were in a city, and kicked a police dog, you would get a nice arm wound and possibly a bullet in your head for your trouble... and everyone would have been happy the police did it. If you were a minority it wouldn't even make the news outside 'criminal attacks cop. now dead'
So what that someone illegally interfering with a federal execution of a court order was thrown tot he ground... Good? She is lucky they didn't do more and she wasn't taken away in handcuffs. They should have done more than taze her. They should have beanbaged them to the face until they were unconscious... they had the right to protest, not violently block the feds. In some states, they would have arrested her for putting her unborn baby at risk and pretty much restrained her to a hospital bed in a prison for the rest of her pregnancy to protect her unborn fetus. Then taken her baby once born and put her in jail.
There was ample legitimate ground to arrest every one of them, and to do so in such a way which used force. These protesters got away with a helluva lot, things the rest of us would not have gotten away with in similar situations. They could have shown up with crowd control methods, incapacitated all of them via multiple forceful actions and arrested them all and been perfectly justified.
They decided to defend themselves and leave opposed to tangle with a violent armed angry mob.
And they could have had drones shot dead every one of Bundy's cattle and been fully within their rights. I would have supported that. Bundy's cattle is still illegally trespassing today.
Communities that can't operate in harmony with the rest of the world due to hate, bigotry and extreme xenophobia of the government should be destroyed.
I see we are talking antecdortes again again, from someone that has no clue what they are talking about.
They held a protest. Cops busted a few yet POTUS and Democrats backed them.
This guy protest. Few get busted by Park Rangers. Bundy a Republican. Yet he is portrayed as the bad guy.
Edit
Park Rangers went hostile first. Video Ouze and Relapse posted showed Bundy side were armed with camera's. Rangers screwed the pooch royally
This right here. Once again the highest officials in the land choose which groups get away with breaking the law and which ones to come down on. Everyone here is giving the BLM a free pass on risking the herds of cattle and the livlihoods of the ranchers running them here in Utah by trying to auction them off here. What crime did the Utahns commit that the BLM would circumvent laws protecting ranchers about cattle having papers on them before trying to sell them?
OWS is lionized by many here despite the fact it caused far more disruption. We have lovely people here saying that everyone there should be destroyed because they wouldn't roll over when the government came into their area like thugs.
nkelsch wrote: I still see zero wrong with how they handled that video. Police legitimately need to escalate sometimes based on the situation.
If you were in a city, and kicked a police dog, you would get a nice arm wound and possibly a bullet in your head for your trouble... and everyone would have been happy the police did it. If you were a minority it wouldn't even make the news outside 'criminal attacks cop. now dead'
So what that someone illegally interfering with a federal execution of a court order was thrown tot he ground... Good? She is lucky they didn't do more and she wasn't taken away in handcuffs. They should have done more than taze her. They should have beanbaged them to the face until they were unconscious... they had the right to protest, not violently block the feds. In some states, they would have arrested her for putting her unborn baby at risk and pretty much restrained her to a hospital bed in a prison for the rest of her pregnancy to protect her unborn fetus. Then taken her baby once born and put her in jail.
There was ample legitimate ground to arrest every one of them, and to do so in such a way which used force. These protesters got away with a helluva lot, things the rest of us would not have gotten away with in similar situations. They could have shown up with crowd control methods, incapacitated all of them via multiple forceful actions and arrested them all and been perfectly justified.
They decided to defend themselves and leave opposed to tangle with a violent armed angry mob.
And they could have had drones shot dead every one of Bundy's cattle and been fully within their rights. I would have supported that. Bundy's cattle is still illegally trespassing today.
Communities that can't operate in harmony with the rest of the world due to hate, bigotry and extreme xenophobia of the government should be destroyed.
I see we are talking antecdortes again again, from someone that has no clue what they are talking about.
You mean all of the valid news stories where criminals were beaten, tazed and arrested for similar violent interactions? Nothing changes that these particular officers show massive restraint in the face of violent armed criminals and were totally within their right to use force.
And you are the king of anecdotes, How is living through your sister any more valid than all of us who know people in that area who have valid experiences? Oh, because it agrees with your position.
A disturbing quote from Tea Party Nation:
“[A] lot of real Americans showed up with their firearms to reinforce the Bundys and the other real Americans protesting the tyrannical actions of the government. When armed, real Americans showed up, the BLM changed its tune and withdrew. Not only did the BLM withdraw, but cattle the BLM had seized, which was the pretext for moving against the Bundy ranch, are being returned and the government is paying for any cattle that died in the operation. The Bundy ranch episode is a warning for real Americans and it is a warning for Washington as well. For decades the government has been waging a war against private property in the west….When American citizens take up arms against armed Federal Agents, someone should start paying attention…Washington, are you listening?”[
We fought a war on this issue, they lost. They are all lucky they are not dead as everyone instigating this was calling for armed violence against the feds and were glad for any and all help, including government separatists, white supremacists and other organizations based upon hate and violence.
Massive restraint was shown, but Bundy still needs to be brought to justice. He is nothing but a violent criminal.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Relapse wrote: We have lovely people here saying that everyone there should be destroyed because they wouldn't roll over when the government came into government owned public land which is their responsibility and had to respond to and remove violent armed trespassing thugs.
Fixed your statement for you. Government didn't come into their land... The government was needed to come in there to protect *OUR* land from *THEM*. Remember, that is federal land which belongs to all of us.
nkelsch wrote: I still see zero wrong with how they handled that video. Police legitimately need to escalate sometimes based on the situation.
If you were in a city, and kicked a police dog, you would get a nice arm wound and possibly a bullet in your head for your trouble... and everyone would have been happy the police did it. If you were a minority it wouldn't even make the news outside 'criminal attacks cop. now dead'
So what that someone illegally interfering with a federal execution of a court order was thrown tot he ground... Good? She is lucky they didn't do more and she wasn't taken away in handcuffs. They should have done more than taze her. They should have beanbaged them to the face until they were unconscious... they had the right to protest, not violently block the feds. In some states, they would have arrested her for putting her unborn baby at risk and pretty much restrained her to a hospital bed in a prison for the rest of her pregnancy to protect her unborn fetus. Then taken her baby once born and put her in jail.
There was ample legitimate ground to arrest every one of them, and to do so in such a way which used force. These protesters got away with a helluva lot, things the rest of us would not have gotten away with in similar situations. They could have shown up with crowd control methods, incapacitated all of them via multiple forceful actions and arrested them all and been perfectly justified.
They decided to defend themselves and leave opposed to tangle with a violent armed angry mob.
And they could have had drones shot dead every one of Bundy's cattle and been fully within their rights. I would have supported that. Bundy's cattle is still illegally trespassing today.
Communities that can't operate in harmony with the rest of the world due to hate, bigotry and extreme xenophobia of the government should be destroyed.
I see we are talking antecdortes again again, from someone that has no clue what they are talking about.
You mean all of the valid news stories where criminals were beaten, tazed and arrested for similar violent interactions? Nothing changes that these particular officers show massive restraint in the face of violent armed criminals and were totally within their right to use force.
And you are the king of anecdotes, How is living through your sister any more valid than all of us who know people in that area who have valid experiences? Oh, because it agrees with your position.
A disturbing quote from Tea Party Nation:
“[A] lot of real Americans showed up with their firearms to reinforce the Bundys and the other real Americans protesting the tyrannical actions of the government. When armed, real Americans showed up, the BLM changed its tune and withdrew. Not only did the BLM withdraw, but cattle the BLM had seized, which was the pretext for moving against the Bundy ranch, are being returned and the government is paying for any cattle that died in the operation. The Bundy ranch episode is a warning for real Americans and it is a warning for Washington as well. For decades the government has been waging a war against private property in the west….When American citizens take up arms against armed Federal Agents, someone should start paying attention…Washington, are you listening?”[
We fought a war on this issue, they lost. They are all lucky they are not dead as everyone instigating this was calling for armed violence against the feds and were glad for any and all help, including government separatists, white supremacists and other organizations based upon hate and violence.
Massive restraint was shown, but Bundy still needs to be brought to justice. He is nothing but a violent criminal.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Relapse wrote: We have lovely people here saying that everyone there should be destroyed because they wouldn't roll over when the government came into government owned public land which is their responsibility and had to respond to and remove violent armed trespassing thugs.
Fixed your statement for you. Government didn't come into their land... The government was needed to come in there to protect *OUR* land from *THEM*. Remember, that is federal land which belongs to all of us.
BLM, leaving dead cattle to rot where they killed them on that federal land you say belongs to us, just like I said they'd do.
Again, this has just become a pants-on-head stupid argument for this guy just because another not similar at all "protest" occurred years ago that some of you didn't like... Which is the most asinine argument you could come up with. One is not justification for the others existence. It seems to me to be the only to be the only avenue of support for Bundy some people here can follow because they no there is no other leg to stand if you want to support him. As previously stated by another more enlightened user, it is indeed possible to disagree with both. I do.
I urge you to go back a couple of pages and read how I very simply explained that Bundy does not understand to definition to sovereignty and what he is doing is in direct contradiction to the Nevada State Constitution. Again, proving that he is just a grandstanding buffoon that is stealing from the American taxpayer while be celebrated for it as some kind of folk hero.
Or you could go back to trolling and anecdotal stories about ranch life while claiming to be person with enough authority to properly comment on the matter.
What do you think happens when you impound something? After a certain amount of time, it gets put up for auction.
The BLM wasn't given permission to break the law by attempting to sell cattle they had no health certificates for at auction in Utah. The only thing that stopped them was the fact our commisioners wouldn't let them.
It is my understanding that the state has a monopoly on the use of force. There are countless things that law enforcement and military personnel are allowed to do that would get most civilians arrested. Things like pointing weapons at other people is, again by my understanding, kind of a huge no-no. Threatening violent resistance has to be taken seriously; if the state is shown to be impotent just because those with a dispute are armed, suddenly the entire basis of civilization becomes "might makes right", and you might as well start stocking up on mad max cosplay gear.
Ideally (to me), this is let to simmer long enough for those involved to get bored while agencies research exactly what happened and whom has broken what laws, and then proceed. Fine and jail time for those who have broken the law and are held accountable for their actions by the courts.
"Oh, but they can't get everyone at once!" some have declared, and that's less than ideal, but acceptable. While 'making an example' of folks is also less than ideal, we're in a highly imperfect situation as it is, and snagging as many of those at the heart of the matter should at least give people pause once they see people receiving said fines, jail time, and being declared criminals, which I do believe has repercussions on their ability to own firearms, a rather significant issue in this matter.
The state is made of people, and people can make mistakes, but when an agency has spent over two decades trying to sort things out peacefully, multiple appeals are rejected, and in response to actions being taken to address these failures those agents are met with the threat of violence, there is something seriously wrong.
They've escalated the situation, and I fear that it will lead to bloodshed, but the state cannot abide 'a couple hundred men and women that are armed' flagrantly disobeying the law.
Nor can 'oh no, they might become martyrs!' stay their response. It is a sensible thing to consider, hence my desire to see legal and just actions be taken to see the situation resolved peacefully, but for some we're clearly already past that the polite route, and the next step up the Use of Force Continuum probably won't be a handwritten card asking really nicely.
They can wave all the "Don't Tread On Me" flags they like, but when you point a weapon at law enforcement officers on video, I can only imagine you aren't too far from having a very unpleasant talk with more of them.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: Again, this has just become a pants-on-head stupid argument for this guy just because another not similar at all "protest" occurred years ago that some of you didn't like... Which is the most asinine argument you could come up with. One is not justification for the others existence. It seems to me to be the only to be the only avenue of support for Bundy some people here can follow because they no there is no other leg to stand if you want to support him. As previously stated by another more enlightened user, it is indeed possible to disagree with both. I do.
I urge you to go back a couple of pages and read how I very simply explained that Bundy does not understand to definition to sovereignty and what he is doing is in direct contradiction to the Nevada State Constitution. Again, proving that he is just a grandstanding buffoon that is stealing from the American taxpayer while be celebrated for it as some kind of folk hero.
Or you could go back to trolling and anecdotal stories about ranch life while claiming to be person with enough authority to properly comment on the matter.
You are correct that OWS wasn't similar, it was worse.
I'm not using it as justification, but pointing out how, many here were all for the OWS movement, which I might add was also talked about by Obama in seemingly glowing terms.
As far as pants on head arguments, we had Dutch, early on claiming the Mormons were behind the whole thing, followed by his little tirade against them, yet no one called him on it but me.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: Again, this has just become a pants-on-head stupid argument for this guy just because another not similar at all "protest" occurred years ago that some of you didn't like... Which is the most asinine argument you could come up with. One is not justification for the others existence. It seems to me to be the only to be the only avenue of support for Bundy some people here can follow because they no there is no other leg to stand if you want to support him. As previously stated by another more enlightened user, it is indeed possible to disagree with both. I do.
I urge you to go back a couple of pages and read how I very simply explained that Bundy does not understand to definition to sovereignty and what he is doing is in direct contradiction to the Nevada State Constitution. Again, proving that he is just a grandstanding buffoon that is stealing from the American taxpayer while be celebrated for it as some kind of folk hero.
Or you could go back to trolling and anecdotal stories about ranch life while claiming to be person with enough authority to properly comment on the matter.
You are correct that OWS wasn't similar, it was worse.
That's good. Instead of offer a counterpoint to support your opinion using the full force of human reason and logic to guide your thoughts, you go with, "Yeah, but those other guys were worse (in my not so accurate opinion)." Brilliant.
Let me use some of your own "logic" against you: you have spent almost 20 pages flaunting you alleged connection with the people of the area and your overwhelmingly intimate knowledge of rural life, firmly planting yourself as "one of them." You have repeatedly disregarded other users opinion on the matter because, to you, they don't have proper insight on the matter. If that is the case, why you are you allowed to be justified in your opinion of OWS, which was a distinctly urban phenomena?
You are correct that OWS wasn't similar, it was worse.
In what way?
Should I start with the rapes and murders or the weeks on end disruption caused in the cities, along with the multi million dollar cleaning bills in the cities where they happened?
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: Again, this has just become a pants-on-head stupid argument for this guy just because another not similar at all "protest" occurred years ago that some of you didn't like... Which is the most asinine argument you could come up with. One is not justification for the others existence. It seems to me to be the only to be the only avenue of support for Bundy some people here can follow because they no there is no other leg to stand if you want to support him. As previously stated by another more enlightened user, it is indeed possible to disagree with both. I do.
I urge you to go back a couple of pages and read how I very simply explained that Bundy does not understand to definition to sovereignty and what he is doing is in direct contradiction to the Nevada State Constitution. Again, proving that he is just a grandstanding buffoon that is stealing from the American taxpayer while be celebrated for it as some kind of folk hero.
Or you could go back to trolling and anecdotal stories about ranch life while claiming to be person with enough authority to properly comment on the matter.
You are correct that OWS wasn't similar, it was worse.
That's good. Instead of offer a counterpoint to support your opinion using the full force of human reason and logic to guide your thoughts, you go with, "Yeah, but those other guys were worse (in my not so accurate opinion)." Brilliant.
Let me use some of your own "logic" against you: you have spent almost 20 pages flaunting you alleged connection with the people of the area and your overwhelmingly intimate knowledge of rural life, firmly planting yourself as "one of them." You have repeatedly disregarded other users opinion on the matter because, to you, they don't have proper insight on the matter. If that is the case, why you are you allowed to be justified in your opinion of OWS, which was a distinctly urban phenomena?
And you ignore that it led to the point I made how people here gave OWS a free pass and it many cases, applauded it when it was happening, yet come down on Bundy.
Should I start with the rapes and murders or the weeks on end disruption caused in the cities, along with the multi million dollar cleaning bills in the cities where they happened?
OWS was protesting a legal practice, the Bundy supporters were supporting an illegal one. The two are miles apart and rape and murder (by protesters) have no pertinence.
Should I start with the rapes and murders or the weeks on end disruption caused in the cities, along with the multi million dollar cleaning bills in the cities where they happened?
OWS was protesting a legal practice, the Bundy supporters were supporting an illegal one. The two are miles apart and rape and murder (by protesters) have no pertinence.
I think it has much pertinence. The fact that you want to give a group of people leave to act illegaly on a large scale and ignore the damage they did while villainizing someone else for far less undercuts your points.
I think it has much pertinence. The fact that you want to give a group of people leave to act illegaly on a large scale and ignore the damage they did while villainizing someone else for far less undercuts your points.
I never made such a claim, that is your invention.
I think it has much pertinence. The fact that you want to give a group of people leave to act illegaly on a large scale and ignore the damage they did while villainizing someone else for far less undercuts your points.
I never made such a claim, that is your invention.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Bundy shall remove his livestock from the former
Bunkerville Allotment within 45 days of the date hereof, and that the United States is entitled to
seize and remove to impound any of Bundy’s cattle that remain in trespass after 45 days of the date
hereof.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the United States is entitled to seize and remove to
impound any of Bundy’s cattle for any future trespasses, provided the United States has complied
with the notice provisions under the governing regulations of the United States Department of the
Interior.
Read it. No way in the court order to sell them.
Remember I mention the Black List?
Remember I mention the Governor of NV mention health concern of the cattle being sold out of state?
Nice try D-USA but there's more involve that what you want to see
If you read the rest of his post they don't need a court order to sell. BLM regulations allow them to offer for resale any cattle they have impounded. The court gave them permission to impound, their own regulations give them permission to sell what they have impounded (which again, this is a common practice in the US).
If you read the rest of his post they don't need a court order to sell. BLM regulations allow them to offer for resale any cattle they have impounded. The court gave them permission to impound, their own regulations give them permission to sell what they have impounded (which again, this is a common practice in the US).
The issue isn't the 'authority' or 'legality' to sell them as BLM has both... the issue is Bundy refused to follow federal procedure in regulating livestock and felt no needs to keep or provide the require medical records for his cattle because he didn't acknowledge the feds regulations on his trade.
They attempted to sell them, and were stopped by regulations. They had the authority to do it and it was perfectly legal, but the cattle were not documented so they weren't sold. That is not the same as 'breaking the law' if they attempted to legally sell cattle they had the right to seize and sell but Utah had regulations which made those cattle unfit. That is why we have inspectors and regulations to keep groups in line in case they are doing something which they unknowingly has an issue.
So the only valid thing to do with Bundy's undocumented animals is to euthanize all off them due to Bundy's negligence or have Bundy foot the expense to get all his cattle up to snuff with fed regulations.
There is nothing wrong with seizing, selling, euthanizing any of Bundy's cattle while trespassing on public land in violation of the law. It is all perfectly legal and within BLM's rights to do what they did and it is within Utah's rights to restrict the sale of the cattle for it being dangerous due to Bundy's neglect.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Bundy shall remove his livestock from the former
Bunkerville Allotment within 45 days of the date hereof, and that the United States is entitled to
seize and remove to impound any of Bundy’s cattle that remain in trespass after 45 days of the date
hereof.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the United States is entitled to seize and remove to
impound any of Bundy’s cattle for any future trespasses, provided the United States has complied
with the notice provisions under the governing regulations of the United States Department of the
Interior.
Read it. No way in the court order to sell them.
Remember I mention the Black List?
Remember I mention the Governor of NV mention health concern of the cattle being sold out of state?
Nice try D-USA but there's more involve that what you want to see
It wasn't just the Nevada governor that was concerned with the illegal sale. The commisioner in Utah, where they wanted to sell them pointed out they wanted no part of uncertified cattle.
If you were in a city, and kicked a police dog, you would get a nice arm wound and possibly a bullet in your head for your trouble... and everyone would have been happy the police did it. If you were a minority it wouldn't even make the news outside 'criminal attacks cop. now dead'
If you believe that is acceptable, you need to seek help. Arrested and thrown in a cell maybe. Killed never.
So what that someone illegally interfering with a federal execution of a court order was thrown tot he ground... Good? She is lucky they didn't do more and she wasn't taken away in handcuffs.
They should have done more than taze her. They should have beanbaged them to the face until they were unconscious...
Really you think that's OK
nkelsch wrote: they had the right to protest, not violently block the feds. In some states, they would have arrested her for putting her unborn baby at risk and pretty much restrained her to a hospital bed in a prison for the rest of her pregnancy to protect her unborn fetus. Then taken her baby once born and put her in jail.
There was ample legitimate ground to arrest every one of them, and to do so in such a way which used force. These protesters got away with a helluva lot, things the rest of us would not have gotten away with in similar situations. They could have shown up with crowd control methods, incapacitated all of them via multiple forceful actions and arrested them all and been perfectly justified.
Communities that can't operate in harmony with the rest of the world due to hate, bigotry and extreme xenophobia of the government should be destroyed.
People trying to attack America say the same thing. As justification.
dogma wrote: OWS was protesting a legal practice, the Bundy supporters were supporting an illegal one. The two are miles apart and rape and murder (by protesters) have no pertinence.
This seems to imply you believe OWS knew what they were protesting against.
dogma wrote: OWS was protesting a legal practice, the Bundy supporters were supporting an illegal one. The two are miles apart and rape and murder (by protesters) have no pertinence.
This seems to imply you believe OWS knew what they were protesting against.
As well as saying rape and murder should be ignored when comparing the two groups of protestors.
If you were in a city, and kicked a police dog, you would get a nice arm wound and possibly a bullet in your head for your trouble... and everyone would have been happy the police did it. If you were a minority it wouldn't even make the news outside 'criminal attacks cop. now dead'
If you believe that is acceptable, you need to seek help. Arrested and thrown in a cell maybe. Killed never.
If they are violent, armed and endangering people? you bet I do... And guess what? If you were simply 'armed' in a city, you will probably be going to jail even if you legally can carry that firearm. If they were violent, breaking the law and interfering with police while armed, they would be shot.
Also, there are many stories of attacks on police animals being treated exactly the same way as if someone attacks any other cop... So if you attack, try to hurt or kill an animal unit, prepare to have deadly force applied to you the same way as if you attempted to kill any other police officer.
So what that someone illegally interfering with a federal execution of a court order was thrown tot he ground... Good? She is lucky they didn't do more and she wasn't taken away in handcuffs.
They should have done more than taze her. They should have beanbaged them to the face until they were unconscious...
Really you think that's OK
Yes... Anyone part of an armed, violent mob breaking the law should be beanbagged until unconscious.
nkelsch wrote: they had the right to protest, not violently block the feds. In some states, they would have arrested her for putting her unborn baby at risk and pretty much restrained her to a hospital bed in a prison for the rest of her pregnancy to protect her unborn fetus. Then taken her baby once born and put her in jail.
There was ample legitimate ground to arrest every one of them, and to do so in such a way which used force. These protesters got away with a helluva lot, things the rest of us would not have gotten away with in similar situations. They could have shown up with crowd control methods, incapacitated all of them via multiple forceful actions and arrested them all and been perfectly justified.
Overkill for protesting I think
Check out the stories of women who put unborn fetuses 'at risk' and are kept in severe lockdown to prevent harming the fetus. The very people protesting this BLM stuff are the very people who would take a way a woman's liberty to force the state to protect her unborn baby. If she is putting her baby at risk by involving herself in illegal activities like she was doing, then there are those who would say she has lost the right to be a fit mother and the state needs to protect her baby from the mother. Freedom indeed?
Communities that can't operate in harmony with the rest of the world due to hate, bigotry and extreme xenophobia of the government should be destroyed.
People trying to attack America say the same thing. As justification.
Yep, and those aspects of America are not a good thing just like the rampant anti-Semitism and thousand years of imperialist colonization of Europe, the religious violence of the middle east, the power struggles and genocide of Africa and nature's war on humanity in Australia with all that crazy dangerous wildlife. I support politicians who are against hate and bigotry and try to make the world a better place through a government represented by the people, I don't resort to violent armed mobs like the horrible people supporting Bundy or terrorists. The BLM is protecting the rest of us and our interests from the actions of a violent criminal, Bundy. I do not see Violent armed mobs breaking the law and getting away with it because they are violent and armed as a 'good thing'. That behavior should not be tolerated.
dogma wrote: OWS was protesting a legal practice, the Bundy supporters were supporting an illegal one. The two are miles apart and rape and murder (by protesters) have no pertinence.
This seems to imply you believe OWS knew what they were protesting against.
As well as saying rape and murder should be ignored when comparing the two groups of protestors.
The issue with the OWS protests was anarchist groups were using the protests as an excuse to do illegal behavior under the cover of the OWS protests and had no connection with the protests. So you want individual due process and responsibility when you say 'Oh the pregnant lady wasn't armed or violent' even though there were hundreds of armed violent people breaking the law but you want to condemn hundreds of peaceful protesters who were not breaking the law because some masked anarchist decided to hide in a crowd and use it to rape and murder...
In DC, they caught the people who were vandalizing and committing crimes and the OWS protestors worked with police to catch them. They were anarchists which had nothing to do with the movement. And once the legal battle was decided and the protestors were forced to leave, the police came in and took down the structures and made them leave. Anyone who was violent, interfered with the removal of the trespassing structures or people was arrested.
So the fact literally *nothing* happened to the violent armed militias in comparison is insane.
If you were in a city, and kicked a police dog, you would get a nice arm wound and possibly a bullet in your head for your trouble... and everyone would have been happy the police did it. If you were a minority it wouldn't even make the news outside 'criminal attacks cop. now dead'
If you believe that is acceptable, you need to seek help. Arrested and thrown in a cell maybe. Killed never.
If they are violent, armed and endangering people? you bet I do... And guess what? If you were simply 'armed' in a city, you will probably be going to jail even if you legally can carry that firearm. If they were violent, breaking the law and interfering with police while armed, they would be shot.
Also, there are many stories of attacks on police animals being treated exactly the same way as if someone attacks any other cop... So if you attack, try to hurt or kill an animal unit, prepare to have deadly force applied to you the same way as if you attempted to kill any other police officer.
So what that someone illegally interfering with a federal execution of a court order was thrown tot he ground... Good? She is lucky they didn't do more and she wasn't taken away in handcuffs.
They should have done more than taze her. They should have beanbaged them to the face until they were unconscious...
Really you think that's OK
Yes... Anyone part of an armed, violent mob breaking the law should be beanbagged until unconscious.
nkelsch wrote: they had the right to protest, not violently block the feds. In some states, they would have arrested her for putting her unborn baby at risk and pretty much restrained her to a hospital bed in a prison for the rest of her pregnancy to protect her unborn fetus. Then taken her baby once born and put her in jail.
There was ample legitimate ground to arrest every one of them, and to do so in such a way which used force. These protesters got away with a helluva lot, things the rest of us would not have gotten away with in similar situations. They could have shown up with crowd control methods, incapacitated all of them via multiple forceful actions and arrested them all and been perfectly justified.
Overkill for protesting I think
Check out the stories of women who put unborn fetuses 'at risk' and are kept in severe lockdown to prevent harming the fetus. The very people protesting this BLM stuff are the very people who would take a way a woman's liberty to force the state to protect her unborn baby. If she is putting her baby at risk by involving herself in illegal activities like she was doing, then there are those who would say she has lost the right to be a fit mother and the state needs to protect her baby from the mother. Freedom indeed?
Communities that can't operate in harmony with the rest of the world due to hate, bigotry and extreme xenophobia of the government should be destroyed.
People trying to attack America say the same thing. As justification.
Yep, and those aspects of America are not a good thing just like the rampant anti-Semitism and thousand years of imperialist colonization of Europe, the religious violence of the middle east, the power struggles and genocide of Africa and nature's war on humanity in Australia with all that crazy dangerous wildlife. I support politicians who are against hate and bigotry and try to make the world a better place through a government represented by the people, I don't resort to violent armed mobs like the horrible people supporting Bundy or terrorists. The BLM is protecting the rest of us and our interests from the actions of a violent criminal, Bundy. I do not see Violent armed mobs breaking the law and getting away with it because they are violent and armed as a 'good thing'. That behavior should not be tolerated.
We probably said exactly the same thing about the Boston tea party.
We probably said exactly the same thing about the Boston tea party.
And if you want to compare these actions as 'freedom fighters in a revolutionary war' then they should not be surprised if they are treated as such, IE: Bullet to the face.
They are not freedom fighters fighting a revolution. They can pretend to be, but they are not. But if they want to pretend they are, they shouldn't complain about being knocked over when they make aggressive 'war-like' actions like violent armed militia.
We probably said exactly the same thing about the Boston tea party.
And if you want to compare these actions as 'freedom fighters in a revolutionary war' then they should not be surprised if they are treated as such, IE: Bullet to the face.
They are not freedom fighters fighting a revolution. They can pretend to be, but they are not. But if they want to pretend they are, they shouldn't complain about being knocked over when they make aggressive 'war-like' actions like violent armed militia.
You seem awfully excited and happy at the thought of people getting killed.
That is at least the appropriate arena to have the discussion in and the correct way to deal with the issue... via the 3 branches of government through our representatives, not armed violent mobs of criminals breaking the law.
If a law is bad, work to have the law changed legally either via the courts or the legislative branch. Funny how that works... as if it was intended to be the best way to resolve disputes.
If the Feds and states want to work something out, that's fine by me... Bundy still needs to go to jail and have his personal property seized to cover his debts and any violent armed mobs need to be arrested and removed from society.
We probably said exactly the same thing about the Boston tea party.
And if you want to compare these actions as 'freedom fighters in a revolutionary war' then they should not be surprised if they are treated as such, IE: Bullet to the face.
They are not freedom fighters fighting a revolution. They can pretend to be, but they are not. But if they want to pretend they are, they shouldn't complain about being knocked over when they make aggressive 'war-like' actions like violent armed militia.
You seem awfully excited and happy at the thought of people getting killed.
Actually, people who take up arms in violent criminal mobs put the rest of us at risk of being killed. So if someone has to die, it should be the people taking violent illegal action, not the rest of us in society which are put carelessly at risk due to their actions. They need to be stopped to protect the rest of us from them.
If they want no one to die, then leave the guns at home, and don't violently attack the feds. Contact your representatives and take up legal battles in court.
nkelsch wrote: That is at least the appropriate arena to have the discussion in and the correct way to deal with the issue... via the 3 branches of government through our representatives, not armed violent mobs of criminals breaking the law.
This statement seems to be at odds with your earlier praise of the OWS movement. Surely you're not being selective?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
nkelsch wrote: If they want no one to die, then leave the guns at home,
Pretty sure you can carry where you want down there.
nkelsch wrote: That is at least the appropriate arena to have the discussion in and the correct way to deal with the issue... via the 3 branches of government through our representatives, not armed violent mobs of criminals breaking the law.
This statement seems to be at odds with your earlier praise of the OWS movement. Surely you're not being selective?
OWS were legally protesting, non-violently without being armed, and when the courts determined they were trespassing and ordered them dispersed, they were dispersed. The difference is the BLM protestors are not peaceful, they are violent, armed, and trespassing and refusing to obey the law and let the courts implement the end result.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
nkelsch wrote: If they want no one to die, then leave the guns at home,
Pretty sure you can carry where you want down there.
But it is illegal to transport guns across state lines for illegal purposes... Armed militias are illegal purposes. And just because you can carry doesn't mean you are not restricted in what you can legally do with said guns. An armed illegal militia breaking the law and assaulting federal agents is not a legal use covered by any carry permit I have ever seen.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Relapse wrote: A map to go along with the story of the 90,000 acre land grab the BLM is currently pulling on ranchers in Texas:
State and county boarders change... He can take it up in court and apply pressure to his legislators to pass a bill to settle the issue in regards to the boarder moving due to the river moving. There are lots of 'laws' which need to be updated due to them being ambiguous... like county/state borders based upon odd agreements which need to be re-certified under new laws. This is actually quite common.
But good job on finding another horrible biased article which starts off strong with lots of false information and lies.
Until I can see an article with facts and not trash lies and know what is actually going on... I don't know if this Henderson has a legitimate case or not, but you know where it starts? An injunction in court which should be easy to get and a discussion in the legislature, not an illegal armed militia attacking federal agents. Changing the law to determine state borders based upon documented coordinates and science instead of an interpretation of 100 year boundary description based upon physical landmarks is a good place to start.
nkelsch wrote: That is at least the appropriate arena to have the discussion in and the correct way to deal with the issue... via the 3 branches of government through our representatives, not armed violent mobs of criminals breaking the law.
This statement seems to be at odds with your earlier praise of the OWS movement. Surely you're not being selective?
OWS were legally protesting, non-violently without being armed, and when the courts determined they were trespassing and ordered them dispersed, they were dispersed. The difference is the BLM protestors are not peaceful, they are violent, armed, and trespassing and refusing to obey the law and let the courts implement the end result.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
nkelsch wrote: If they want no one to die, then leave the guns at home,
Pretty sure you can carry where you want down there.
But it is illegal to transport guns across state lines for illegal purposes... Armed militias are illegal purposes. And just because you can carry doesn't mean you are not restricted in what you can legally do with said guns. An armed illegal militia breaking the law and assaulting federal agents is not a legal use covered by any carry permit I have ever seen.
Legally protesting? Clogging up cities for weeks, trashing those cities they were in, rape and murder, ignoring court orders and finally costing many millions more to the tax payer than what happened in Nevada? You have a strange way of defining what's legal for one group and not another.
nkelsch wrote: That is at least the appropriate arena to have the discussion in and the correct way to deal with the issue... via the 3 branches of government through our representatives, not armed violent mobs of criminals breaking the law.
This statement seems to be at odds with your earlier praise of the OWS movement. Surely you're not being selective?
OWS were legally protesting, non-violently without being armed, and when the courts determined they were trespassing and ordered them dispersed, they were dispersed. The difference is the BLM protestors are not peaceful, they are violent, armed, and trespassing and refusing to obey the law and let the courts implement the end result.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
nkelsch wrote: If they want no one to die, then leave the guns at home,
Pretty sure you can carry where you want down there.
But it is illegal to transport guns across state lines for illegal purposes... Armed militias are illegal purposes. And just because you can carry doesn't mean you are not restricted in what you can legally do with said guns. An armed illegal militia breaking the law and assaulting federal agents is not a legal use covered by any carry permit I have ever seen.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Relapse wrote: A map to go along with the story of the 90,000 acre land grab the BLM is currently pulling on ranchers in Texas:
State and county boarders change... He can take it up in court and apply pressure to his legislators to pass a bill to settle the issue in regards to the boarder moving due to the river moving. There are lots of 'laws' which need to be updated due to them being ambiguous... like county/state borders based upon odd agreements which need to be re-certified under new laws. This is actually quite common.
But good job on finding another horrible biased article which starts off strong with lots of false information and lies.
Until I can see an article with facts and not trash lies and know what is actually going on... I don't know if this Henderson has a legitimate case or not, but you know where it starts? An injunction in court which should be easy to get and a discussion in the legislature, not an illegal armed militia attacking federal agents. Changing the law to determine state borders based upon documented coordinates and science instead of an interpretation of 100 year boundary description based upon physical landmarks is a good place to start.
Why are you so quick to dismiss the article as trash lies, or even the BLM acting illegally in trying to sell cattle with no documents as to their health, risking herd contaminations in other states?
Why are you so quick to dismiss the article as trash lies?
Are you really that dense?
First line - LIE: After failing in their attempt to steal a Nevada Rancher’s land last week
Biased agenda + Lie as it is confirmed he hasn't paid: where BLM officials claim Cliven Bundy has failed to pay them, what in my opinion are illegal land fees to begin with.\
On a County Supremacist website with lots of other trash articles...
Find a better source before you try to say the poor texas rancher needs to be defended or rescued as Bundy sure didn't. You might make a better case with facts from reliable sources which actually show your side favorably than posting biased articles with documented lies and boldface biases in the article which clouds the issue and makes it hard to 'give a damn'.
Minimal googling has shown he may have a case... and guess what? He is at the start of his 20 year battle, and he will probably easily get an injunction to protect him until it is sorted out. The system working as it should. But when it is sorted out, armed violence is not acceptable if he doesn't like the outcome.
Why are you so quick to dismiss the article as trash lies?
Are you really that dense?
First line - LIE: After failing in their attempt to steal a Nevada Rancher’s land last week
Biased agenda + Lie as it is confirmed he hasn't paid: where BLM officials claim Cliven Bundy has failed to pay them, what in my opinion are illegal land fees to begin with.\
On a County Supremacist website with lots of other trash articles...
Find a better source before you try to say the poor texas rancher needs to be defended or rescued as Bundy sure didn't. You might make a better case with facts from reliable sources which actually show your side favorably than posting biased articles with documented lies and boldface biases in the article which clouds the issue and makes it hard to 'give a damn'.
Minimal googling has shown he may have a case... and guess what? He is at the start of his 20 year battle, and he will probably easily get an injunction to protect him until it is sorted out. The system working as it should. But when it is sorted out, armed violence is not acceptable if he doesn't like the outcome.
I actually posted that a couple of other times in this thread from a legitimate source, and the youtube attached to it is quoted in the same source, but everyone ignored it. I figured you'd jump at the chance to try to study the article since it was in a publication you thought would be easy to pick apart. I was not disappointed in my expectation of your actions, and you finally read about more BLM shenanigans.
You still never answered me what you thought of their illegal attempt to sell undocumented cattle that for all they knew, could have been diseased.
You still never answered me what you thought of their illegal attempt to sell undocumented cattle that for all they knew, could have been diseased.
It wasn't illegal for them to seize or sell seized cattle. If anything it was Bundy's lack of following federal regulations for documenting his cattle in regards to the health of his cows and the food supply which were the issue. When Utah saw there was a failure in documentation, they stopped the sale... So now the BLM should euthanize those cows due to Bundy's failure to follow federal regulations. Nothing BLM did was illegal, and when here was an issue, they addressed it.
Why do you continue to skate around the issue that Bundy is a criminal and breaking the law and nothing justifies that?
And BLM isn't changing the state borders... just responding to the state and federals response when they acknowledge the discrepancy and what under current laws shows a change in the border. If someone has said 'hey, due to the change in the physical landscape, this is now under a different jurisdiction, you guys need to do what is required in that jurisdiction.' then they will do it. Guess what? that is what we have a court to investigate and if required, protect people's rights and a legislature to change laws should there be a discrepancy or an ambiguous issue.
You still never answered me what you thought of their illegal attempt to sell undocumented cattle that for all they knew, could have been diseased.
It wasn't illegal for them to seize or sell seized cattle. If anything it was Bundy's lack of following federal regulations for documenting his cattle in regards to the health of his cows and the food supply which were the issue. When Utah saw there was a failure in documentation, they stopped the sale... So now the BLM should euthanize those cows due to Bundy's failure to follow federal regulations. Nothing BLM did was illegal, and when here was an issue, they addressed it.
Why do you continue to skate around the issue that Bundy is a criminal and breaking the law and nothing justifies that?
And BLM isn't changing the state borders... just responding to the state and federals response when they acknowledge the discrepancy and what under current laws shows a change in the border. If someone has said 'hey, due to the change in the physical landscape, this is now under a different jurisdiction, you guys need to do what is required in that jurisdiction.' then they will do it. Guess what? that is what we have a court to investigate and if required, protect people's rights and a legislature to change laws should there be a discrepancy or an ambiguous issue.
You apparently didn't read the federal regulations I posted, either. I'll try to find a right wing rag somewhere with them in it, so you will. First you say it isn't illegal for them to sell the cattle, then a sentence later you say they should kill them. If they acted legally, maybe you wouldn't be running in circles trying to defend them.
Automatically Appended Next Post: As far as Bundy goes, I said from the first he was wrong, but I despised the way the BLM screwed the whole thing up. Have you even been reading anything I wrote, or were you so jazzed on your slaughter everyone down there line that you totaly overlooked that?
So most of you all agree that a Executive Branch department can go beyond a Judicial Court Order. So one's own Rules, Regulation and Laws of the Executive Branch trumps the guide lines of a Court Order.
-Let me think back on Civics 101 here. A Court Order is the middle ground for both parties to avoid anymore snags in a trial process. Am I wrong?
-When a Court Order is issued one has to stay within the guide lines of the court order itself? Court Order says to Impound them only. It did not say to sell or execute cattle. So if a Department goes beyond the Court Order and stays within it owns guide lines that is not set by the Court Order then they are still right? I must be wrong because I'm under strong impression you cannot go beyond the scope of the Court Order regardless of Rules, Regulation, and/or Laws of the Department.
-Is there a Executive Branch version of a Court Order which lets them expand on any Judicial Court Order or is there just one type of Court Order from the Judicial Branch one stays within?
Edit
One would actually think the Judge who issued the Court Order took into account of rustling and selling cattle in Cattle Country hence "Impound"
Jihadin wrote: Court Order says to Impound them only. It did not say to sell or execute cattle.
What happens if your car is towed and impounded because you have racked up thousands of dollars of unpaid parking tickets?
Unless you are using a definition of "seize and impound" that I am not familiar with, it's held for x long and then sold at auction to recoup the costs of the ticket + tow + storage.
You still haven't accepted our peaceful annexation of your country in 1845. learn to sing the Yellow Rose and get over it already.
