Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 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..

 Jihadin wrote:
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

They don't need to have "someone in charge". Do you think Park Rangers need a babysitter or something?

2. Should not have attempted to auction/sell his cattle

Why?

3 Should not have killed a bull and possibly a second one

Why?

4 Should not have brought the Desert tortoise in

Why?

5. Should have kept it Court

They did. Bundy lost.

6. Should have put a lien on his house

Why?

7. Should have kept his Federal Tax returns every year he has not paid grazing rights.

That's assuming he files federal taxes.

Two Park Rangers screwed this up.

Why? Because you think they did?

 Jihadin wrote:
5. Should have kept it Court

It never left court. They were enforcing a court order.

Two Park Rangers screwed this up.

No.

One idiot screwed it up. Backed up by many more idiots with guns.

 Jihadin wrote:


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

The protesters were interfering with the process. And assaulting a police officer should get you shot no matter what you think about the dog.

Have you managed to find a source yet for all your "they went beyond the court order" talk?

 Jihadin wrote:

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.

 Kanluwen wrote:
For all intents and purposes it was the Liberal version of the Tea Party.

Only without the elected candidates, the platform, the influence, the organization, and with a lot of criminal activity and bad facial hair.

 Seaward wrote:
bad facial hair.

When I wondered around the Tea Party rallies I saw some pretty bad facial hair. A lot more Neo-Nazis there as well.

D-USA I posted a link up to you to go back.

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.

KK its an integrity thing. "Stolen Cattle"

 Jihadin wrote:
D-USA I posted a link up to you to go back.

You did, and I replied. It didn't adress jack about your claim that they violated the court order.

Here is your post and my response to it:

 Jihadin wrote:
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/57792018-90/utah-cattle-county-blm.html.csp

Very first sentence there D

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.

Just to stop that stupid nonsense, here is the actual 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.

Jihadin wrote:Careful on "ASSUMING" Ouze. Where in the video can you debunk me?

I already led you to water; I can't make you drink it.

Jihadin wrote:I'm rooting for Bundy OFL Movement...Occupy Federa Land

Especially when you tell me up front you're not thirsty.

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.

How does the BLAM guy tazering Bundy's son overturn the court order?

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.

Don't wanna pay the fine? Just pretend you are this guy:



Bundy was lucky the BLM didn't bring their staff.

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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jihadin wrote:
Kan. Did not OWS do the same thing to?

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.

Relapse wrote:

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:

Relapse wrote:

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.

 Kanluwen wrote:

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's a shame this has gone so far.

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.

Relapse wrote:

You are correct that OWS wasn't similar, it was worse.

In what way?

Relapse wrote:

 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?

 dogma wrote:

Relapse wrote:

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?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 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.

Relapse wrote:

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.

 dogma wrote:

Relapse wrote:

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.

Relapse wrote:

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.