Frazzled wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 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.

 Spacemanvic wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 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.

 Spacemanvic wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 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:
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:
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.

 Spacemanvic wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 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.

 d-usa wrote:
I hear that Obama is planting a potato farm there.

 Jihadin wrote:
Should have kept it in court but nnnoooooooo they had to play Space Cowboys

 Frazzled wrote:

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.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

 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?

 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?

 motyak wrote:
I honestly never thought I'd see someone coming at Frazzled with

'your viewpoint was held by the British too, and look how that turned out. REVOLUTION. 'MURICA'

I mean, just because he was around back then doesn't mean he agreed with them.

 dogma wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

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.

It is a strange day when Frazzled, Ouze, dogma, Ahtman, and d-usa agree on something.

 Jihadin wrote:
Thinking Frazz was not refering to me

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.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Spacemanvic wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 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!

 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.

nkelsch wrote:

 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.