Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher

Posted by: pdx rick

Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/12/14 01:01 AM


FULL TITLE: Militias 'mobilizing' to support embattled Clark County rancher in clash with federal rangers

via Las Vegas Review Journal


If there's anything the rwingers loves, it's law & order, because if you don't respect the law, you're a lawless criminal. Barack Obama, for instance, he is a lawless renegade who thinks that the executive branch can make changes to how the Affordable Care Act is administered without asking permission from the Tea Party.

And so it makes perfect sense that the rwing media are calling for firm action in the case of a Nevada scofflaw who thinks the law doesn’t apply to him. Except that T-Baggers are on the scofflaw’s side because in this case the scofflaw is a rancher named Cliven Bundy who says he doesn't have to pay grazing fees or comply with a federal court order - which he's been ignoring since 1998 - telling him to remove his cattle from federal land. In fact, they're all but urging him to take an armed stand, agreeing with him that he's in a fight against an out-of-control tyrannical government.

Writes Media Matters:

Quote:
In 1993, Bundy began refusing to pay government fees required to allow his cattle to exploit public lands. In 1998, the government issued a court order telling Bundy to remove his cows from the land, as part of an effort to protect the endangered desert tortoise located there. And in July 2013, a federal court ordered Bundy to get his cattle off public land within 45 days or they would be confiscated. The confiscation began this month, and the cattle will be sold to pay off the $1 million in fees and trespassing fines Bundy owes.


This story has everything: a romantic hero rancher/business man, an irrational bureaucracy that wants him to pay to run cattle on his family's ancestral grazing land (OK, it's federally owned land, so just stay with me here), a stupid useless endangered turtle species endangering this nice man's livelihood, and the threat of confiscation. No wonder the guy's the greatest folk hero since Randy Weaver. Here's hoping he doesn't have a bunker.

Bundy is also making sure to remind everyone that he is not opposed to Second Amendmenting his way to a resolution of his legal troubles. In 2013, he told the Las Vegas Sun that "he keeps firearms at his ranch" and is willing to "do whatever it takes" to protect his property. He added that "I abide by all state laws. But I abide by almost zero federal laws."

Everyone's favorite dough boy, Sean Hannity, asked Bundy, "How far are you willing to go? How far are you willing to take this?" The Last Free Man in the West replied:

Quote:
My statement to the American people, I'll do whatever it takes to gain our liberty and freedom back."


What...a...manly hero!

The Las Vegas Review-Journal article talks about the arrival of armed antigovernment militia folks to "help" Bundy. But don't worry, they're promising that they won't instigate any shooting that happens. They're just coming to resist tyranny. These militia folk seem really very nice, and I'm sure that their presence is all that's needed to make the Feds see reason. What could possibly go wrong?
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/12/14 01:17 AM

Yuh danged thread jumper! This hyar's my Mob Rule thread! 'N I gots the video! mad
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/12/14 02:20 AM


Originally Posted By: logtroll
Yuh danged thread jumper! This hyar's my Mob Rule thread! 'N I gots the video! mad

My bad. But, then again, your thread title wasn't descriptive enough causing me to largely ignore it. coffee
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/12/14 03:00 AM

Originally Posted By: california rick


Originally Posted By: logtroll
Yuh danged thread jumper! This hyar's my Mob Rule thread! 'N I gots the video! mad

My bad. But, then again, your thread title wasn't descriptive enough causing me to largely ignored it. coffee
My Mom was a lunch lady and she was never mean to me, or ignored me. Seems the lunch lady profession is losing it's mojo?
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/12/14 03:09 AM

Originally Posted By: logtroll
Originally Posted By: california rick


Originally Posted By: logtroll
Yuh danged thread jumper! This hyar's my Mob Rule thread! 'N I gots the video! mad

My bad. But, then again, your thread title wasn't descriptive enough causing me to largely ignored it. coffee
My Mom was a lunch lady and she was never mean to me, or ignored me. Seems the lunch lady profession is losing it's mojo?

LOL I'm an administrative 'lunch lady' - I work in the office. I don't do field (site cafeteria) work. smile
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/12/14 03:59 AM



Is Clive Bundy related to Ted or Al? Hmm
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/12/14 04:36 AM


With grilling season fast approaching I look forward with great anticipation to my allotment of free Obama-beef resulting from this confiscation. Thanks Obama!
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/12/14 04:40 AM




Single moms on welfare = freeloaders.

Greedy ranchers on public land = defenders of freedom.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/12/14 04:41 AM


BENGRAZING!!1!!!!11!!!!!11!!!!!
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/12/14 04:54 AM


This Bundy Ranch thingy is about what every good American wants: Free grass
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/12/14 05:00 AM




Hippies protest BLM horse roundups with sit-ins.

T-Baggers protest BLM cow roundups with AK-47s.
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/12/14 11:52 AM

This idea of resisting the rule of federal law and courts is just about as old as America. Just look up Shay's Rebellion or The Whiskey Rebellion. The former was actually the inspiration for the Second Amendment: So when the federal government called up the local militia and sent them to fight the rebels, they would have adequate weapons, ammo, and skill to kill them.

These fringe groups that call themselves "militias" are NOT. I encourage as many of them as possible to go join this fight, and to actually shoot at federal law enforcement officers or National Guard troops. Our country will be vastly improved with them gone.
Posted by: Scoutgal

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/12/14 12:23 PM

Originally Posted By: pondering_it_all
This idea of resisting the rule of federal law and courts is just about as old as America. Just look up Shay's Rebellion or The Whiskey Rebellion. The former was actually the inspiration for the Second Amendment: So when the federal government called up the local militia and sent them to fight the rebels, they would have adequate weapons, ammo, and skill to kill them.

These fringe groups that call themselves "militias" are NOT. I encourage as many of them as possible to go join this fight, and to actually shoot at federal law enforcement officers or National Guard troops. Our country will be vastly improved with them gone.


Gotta agree with you here, PIA!
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/13/14 04:34 PM

Originally Posted By: california rick

BENGRAZING!!1!!!!11!!!!!11!!!!!

It's began, gitcher guns, thar a comin' fer us!! Now available: Conspiracy Primer and Revolution Fer Dummies Manual.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/13/14 06:16 PM

Originally Posted By: logtroll
Originally Posted By: california rick

BENGRAZING!!1!!!!11!!!!!11!!!!!

It's began, gitcher guns, thar a comin' fer us!! Now available: Conspiracy Primer and Revolution Fer Dummies Manual.

Quote:
The BLM has tucked their tail between their legs and run for cover.

That's exactly how the RWingnuts described it at Greta's. Then something about Harry Reid and the Chinese want the land for a giant mirror solar display and a former Reid aid, now head of the BLM, has had something to do with this.

I was all: Militia wingnuts from across the nation wanted a second amendment rumble (aka bunker-style rave party?) with the federal government and the adults with cooler heads and thinking deescalated the situation. Calm-down wingnuts. Hmm

The good news is that fewer truck nutz are being sited in Nevada now that the militia wingnuts have gone back home.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/13/14 07:14 PM

Originally Posted By: california rick

BENGRAZING!!1!!!!11!!!!!11!!!!!


LOL LOL LOL ROTFMOLROTFMOL LOL LOL LOL
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/13/14 07:19 PM



Hey Loggy, check-out the companion to Conspiracy Primer and Revolution Fer Dummies Manual, Even More Conspiracy Primer and Revolution Fer Dummies Manual . That one is a hoot!
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/13/14 07:26 PM

Originally Posted By: california rick
Hey Loggy, check-out the companion to Conspiracy Primer and Revolution Fer Dummies Manual, Even More Conspiracy Primer and Revolution Fer Dummies Manual . That one is a hoot!
Yeah, I saw that posted by the owner of Where Liberty Cave Dwellers Dwell yesterday. Google the guy who authored the alert and see what his site looks like!
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/13/14 08:22 PM


Doug Hagmann? Looks like a whole lot of special kind of mental illness going on there. Poor fella. I hope he knows that insurance companies can't turn down his mental health treatments any longer.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/13/14 08:24 PM

Posted by: pdx rick

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/13/14 08:41 PM


One of the Gretaites just linked to Hagmman's site. Too funny! I'm telling you, being a RWinger is akin to publicly announcing your mental illness. Seriously.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/13/14 08:55 PM

In this particular instance it is not mere mental illness, but a virile strain of de-range-ment.
coffee(free range milk)
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/13/14 09:20 PM

Rick, did you like my five minute graphic?
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/13/14 09:38 PM

NEWS FLASH!!
Cliven (what kind if a name is that?) Bundy has just publicly admitted that he was in error, due to a simple misunderstanding about a marketing strategy.

Said Mr. Bundy at an impromptu news conference, "Wal, mah little granddaughter Nellie, she'll be two in a month, I reckon, jes' tol' me, Poppy, free range don't mean the range is free, it's the cows a walking' around on the range that's free!"

"Don't know why them danged freeloading' Feds was so durn obfusculus about it, it don't take no farmer tuh understand that 'un," he said. "I 'spect that's why they be a takin' muh cows, an' the dogies too, cuz thar free." "So I still ain't a gonna pay 'em, cuz they done kep me in the dark fer so long. I'm a gonna pay Nellie, instead!", he concluded to thunderous applause from the assembled freedom fighters.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/13/14 09:44 PM

Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas
Rick, did you like my five minute graphic?

Take the hyphen out. smile
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/13/14 09:53 PM

Posted by: pdx rick

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/13/14 09:56 PM


Perfect!! smile
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/13/14 09:57 PM

Originally Posted By: logtroll
NEWS FLASH!!
Cliven (what kind if a name is that?) Bundy has just publicly admitted that he was in error, due to a simple misunderstanding about a marketing strategy.

Said Mr. Bundy at an impromptu news conference, "Wal, mah little granddaughter Nellie, she'll be two in a month, I reckon, jes' tol' me, Poppy, free range don't mean the range is free, it's the cows a walking' around on the range that's free!"

"Don't know why them danged freeloading' Feds was so durn obfusculus about it, it don't take no farmer tuh understand that 'un," he said. "I 'spect that's why they be a takin' muh cows, an' the dogies too, cuz thar free." "So I still ain't a gonna pay 'em, cuz they done kep me in the dark fer so long. I'm a gonna pay Nellie, instead!", he concluded to thunderous applause from the assembled freedom fighters.

...he concluded to the thuderous applause from the assembled freedum frighters. wink
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/13/14 10:11 PM

Of course. I must a transcribed it poorly.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/13/14 10:51 PM



We need to ensure that we are using the correct spelling when we speak of (second amendment) freedum fighters.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/14/14 02:31 PM

Clive Bundy doesn't need to be in the papers, he needs to be in skool. He's an idjit, an' needs sum edjimacation. Ah thinks the best edjimacation is had in jail. He'd larn a thing 'er two about "constraints on liberty," then.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/14/14 02:46 PM

Yup. I was contemplating his "position" this morning and wondered how you can have a right to 600,000 acres that you never paid for, don't have title to, and don't pay taxes on. What makes him so special that he has that right, yet nobody else does?

I did a little research on the history of the BLM over the weekend and, though the designated BLM has only been in existence since the late 1940's, it is the latest iteration in a long string of federal managers of that land, which entered the "ownership" of the U.S. long ago and was never transferred to other ownership. The Bundy family has always had to get some kind of permission from the federal government to use it.

Wonder if Cliven would rather pay property taxes on that land for the last 100 years, or if the $1.35 per AUM (animal unit month) grazing fee was cheaper (if he had been paying it).

Cows don't belong in that dry ecosystem, in any case, and never did belong there. It takes around 100 acres to support a cow there for part of the year. If Bundy had not been subsidized by the gummit he hates so much, he would have been out of business long ago.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/14/14 03:07 PM

Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
Clive Bundy doesn't need to be in the papers, he needs to be in skool. He's an idjit, an' needs sum edjimacation. Ah thinks the best edjimacation is had in jail. He'd larn a thing 'er two about "constraints on liberty," then.

Probably home-schooled. T-Partiers are into that sort of thing. coffee
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/14/14 03:13 PM

It's part of that whole "inbreeding" thang.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/14/14 03:18 PM

Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
It's part of that whole "inbreeding" thang.

LOL Incest: It's a game the whole family can play. gobsmacked
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/14/14 03:30 PM

I didn't watch all of this, but the two fellers give us more insight into their perspective and motivation. The first guy is having second thoughts about the Great Victory of U.S. Citizens against the evil gummit - thinks they might have been rubes. He also complains about bein' rilly tard an' havin' to sleep on the ground an' gittin' bit by lots little bugs. Guess the life of the rebel don't suit him none too well.

The second guy is all about how the militiaboys had 20 BLM youngsters outgunned 500 to 20 and had them "dead to rights" in inescapable crossfire if "they had tried anything". That's a little different than the po' ranchers a gittin' bullied by the armed feds narrative. His unquenched desire to have murdered all the BLMers is palpable.

Crazy bastids - I don't know how we have survived as a species for so long.

Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/14/14 03:58 PM

Duck dynasty, kinda says it all, don't it?
Posted by: rporter314

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/14/14 11:11 PM

18 U.S. Code § 2384 - Seditious conspiracy
If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

you the reader decide
Posted by: Spag-hetti

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/14/14 11:42 PM

As I understand it, the ownership and the fees in arrears have already been litigated. I'm not citin' because I'm clarifyin'. A court has already decided. Law enforcement, BLM, whoever, is, after due warning, carrying out the decision of the court.

Time to look to the law. Unless somebody has something better, I'll take rporter's legal quote. The Bundy family certainly seems to be breaking some serious laws.

As for the others present? We all know how ill informed some people are. I bet they thought they were coming to the rescue of the downtrodden.

In the video I saw on TV, one of the demonstrators was obviously coaching the others -- shouting instructions, giving strategy explanations, videoing statements. Wonder where he got his expertise.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/15/14 01:29 PM

I would think that before committing a flagrant act of sedition that one would carefully examine the facts to determine if the cause was defensible and winnable under the Constitution, or if the underlying rationale was based upon alternative interpretations of the law, which have not prevailed in the last 225 years.

But there I go, thinking, when action is the word of the day.

Tantrums have their place as well, and almost always work to resolve issues. And what recourse have the jack-booted federal thugs left the cow-boys, with their illegal attempt to enforce the law? The BLM, with their unfair position of having the law on their side, is forcing the cow-boys and maliciousmen to throw a tantrum.

I shall go and join the revolution, as soon as I can get away. I believe I will stay in Vegas, though, having heard about the bugs and heat and stuff out there in the desert - maybe catch a Cirque du Soleil show during the the gaps in the action.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/15/14 02:27 PM

I love "maliciousmen". Well done.

Ignorance of the law, and the constitution, seems to be their only excuse. The good news, of course, is that since they were so open about their defiance, on camera and all, and so stupid about the law and their words, finding, and arresting, and trying the lot of them will be fairly simple. It will take time, of course, and careful timing. What, by the way, makes these idjits think that they are different than other terrorists? Their complete inability to make even simple distinctions between their acts and other terrorist groups is breathtaking.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/15/14 03:10 PM

You are too kind, NWP.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/15/14 11:46 PM

"Kindness" is my middle name.
Posted by: Spag-hetti

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/16/14 12:18 AM

Heck, you two, even I am blushing.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/16/14 12:43 AM

Originally Posted By: Spag-hetti
Heck, you two, even I am blushing.

LOL Those two - who'd ever thunk it. Not me!!! Hmm
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/16/14 12:57 AM

There may be a third!

Did anyone see Brokeback Mountain? Oh, those sheep ranchers! But you should see what the cattlemen and Maliciousmen do out there in those sleeping bags! blush
Posted by: Golem

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/16/14 01:45 AM

Glenn Beck Warns Americans Against Falling in With the ‘Right's Version of Occupy Wall Street'
Erica Ritz
The Blaze
April 14, 2014

Quote:
The controversy over a Nevada rancher's decades-long use of public land without paying federal grazing fees has quickly become a national issue — one that Glenn Beck on Monday urged Americans to fully understand before taking a side on.

"We did some research online with PsyID today, and found that there's about 10 or 15 percent of the people who are talking about this online that are truly frightening," Beck said on his television program. "They don't care what the facts are. They just want a fight."

Beck said there are many "decent, small-government proponents from groups like the Tea Party" supporting Bundy, and they need to be aware that the controversy has drawn "violent, anti-government" individuals who are "the right's version of Occupy Wall Street," as well.

More, with reader comments


If You Find Yourself Believing This, Glenn Beck Wants You to Unfriend Him
Erica Ritz
The Blaze
April 15, 2014

Quote:
Glenn Beck has a message for anyone who is "crying for revolution, insurrection … and a call to arms": He wants nothing to do with you.

"This morning I got up and I saw some more news reports, and more people in America that are standing up now and crying for revolution, insurrection, arming yourself, and a call to arms," Beck said on his radio program Tuesday. "I will tell you I believe in the Second Amendment, and I will defend myself. I believe in the rights that we have. But I will tell you more than I believe in my rights, I believe in the responsibilities that we have to God. And God does not call anyone to anger. God does not call anyone to vengeance ever, ever, ever."

More, with reader comments
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/16/14 02:08 AM

Originally Posted By: Golem
Glenn Beck Warns Americans Against Falling in With the ‘Right's Version of Occupy Wall Street'

Did Mr. Beck then start weeping? LOL

Posted by: pdx rick

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/16/14 05:35 AM


Q: What do you call a person who chooses not to "recognize" the authority of the United States?

A: A T-bagger
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/16/14 05:40 AM


T-Baggers hate lawlessness unless its their own special brand of Nevada lawlessness
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/16/14 02:38 PM

I admit it, I think that the folks involved in this dust-up are intellectually inferior and a danger to society. The question is, "What do we do about it?" My favored result is that they be separated from the rest of us, and rendered impotent. How, though, can that be accomplished in a moral and principled way? Can it be done within the structures and limitations of our laws? And, at what cost? Yes, I think that their behavior is criminal, but do I want the lives of law enforcement personnel put at risk trying to bring them to justice? At what point do they move past being an "annoyance" and pest to a real threat? I think they are close, now, but what are the implications of action? Ruby Ridge and Waco are lessons of just how volatile these personalities are and how difficult they are to bring to heel.
Posted by: Ma_Republican

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/16/14 03:21 PM

Originally Posted By: california rick



Hippies protest BLM horse roundups with sit-ins.

T-Baggers protest BLM cow roundups with AK-47s.


AK-47's 1, Sit-ins 0.

If I were the administration would walk easily on this, people are upset and the country is divided about how powerful the Fed should really be. By backing down they have encouraged the crazies and given them an issue to rally behind. It wouldn't take much to push this into dangerous territory and I do not want to see anybody get shot over a grazing rights issue. However, when I saw the ham handed way that the BLM decided to handle this issue I expect that the eventual "Ruby Ridge" moment that is coming.
Posted by: Ma_Republican

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/16/14 03:23 PM

Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
Ruby Ridge and Waco are lessons of just how volatile these personalities are and how difficult they are to bring to heel.


Are the "they" the federal government or the citizens that the federal government attacked?
Posted by: Ardy

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/16/14 03:45 PM

If you want to see ham handed
Try threatening a police officer with a gun while telling him to back off.

As I understand it
This family stopped paying rent 20 years ago

You do that with your taxes and you have Elliot ness. On your ass.

The Blm is not set up as a police agency
If or when a police agency is called in
They will not be amused by people pointing guns at them.

I am not familiar with this case
So cannot say if there is some valid grounds to oppose the gov
Otoh if they used to pay rent
And stopped
It seems like there is an acknowledge that they are using land they do not own.
Or do they pay taxes on this land

But what ever the case
People who threaten. Gov officials with guns. Have made a serious decision.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/16/14 04:00 PM

Originally Posted By: Ma_Republican
... However, when I saw the ham handed way that the BLM decided to handle this issue ...
What was ham-handed about it? They were there rounding up cows and a mob confronted them. They tried to work it out but the Bundys refused. They backed down.

I think the amateur militia certainly behaved in a ham-handed manner, and without any legal basis for their actions. The U.S. has had title to the land in question since Mexico ceded it in 1848. Various federal agencies have managed it since that time, charging rent, the most recent entity being the BLM starting in 1948.

Ardy pegged it pretty good, I think.

The point is that Bundy has been trying to create a legal fiction that he has some kind of rights to federal land, where he does not.

Here's an example that may be appropriate::

You rent me a house that has been owned by your family since 1848, where I live for 40 years starting in 1954, paying rent all the time. In 1993, you decide that you want to change the house and charge a different rent. I don't like the changes that you are going to do to your house, so I claim that because I lived there for 30 years, I now have ancestral rights (my uncle also rented part of the house for a couple of years 90 years ago, too), and I stop paying rent. We go to court and you get an eviction notice, but I still won't move out. You wait a very long time, hoping I will come to my senses, before finally you call the police to evict me and move my stuff out of the house, selling whatever to help cover the legal costs and the eviction costs and the past due rent. I get a bunch of folks to come, who believe my legal fiction about ancestral rights and who hate people like you (whatever that means to them), and present armed resistance. When the cops don't shoot me and my new friends, I declare victory over the government thugs who overstepped the bounds of the Constitution by trying to force me to give you your house back.

Bundy is just a rent deadbeat.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/16/14 06:06 PM

Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
What, by the way, makes these idjits think that they are different than other terrorists? Their complete inability to make even simple distinctions between their acts and other terrorist groups is breathtaking.


Welp NWP, I'm gawn tell yew whut makes them diffurnt from fum other terra-issts. tonbricks
What If Bundy Ranch Were Owned By A Bunch Of BLACK People?



Now, throw in a white wife, and I bet that militia would be preparing for a good old fashioned lynching.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/16/14 06:19 PM

Originally Posted By: logtroll
There may be a third!

Did anyone see Brokeback Mountain? Oh, those sheep ranchers! But you should see what the cattlemen and Maliciousmen do out there in those sleeping bags! blush


---Aww shee-oot fellers! Don't be afraid to be yourselves!

Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/16/14 06:32 PM

Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
Can it be done within the structures and limitations of our laws? And, at what cost? Yes, I think that their behavior is criminal, but do I want the lives of law enforcement personnel put at risk trying to bring them to justice? At what point do they move past being an "annoyance" and pest to a real threat? I think they are close, now, but what are the implications of action? Ruby Ridge and Waco are lessons of just how volatile these personalities are and how difficult they are to bring to heel.


--Which is exactly why the order to stand down went out to BLM and law enforcement. No way in Hell were they going to make the mistake of martyring Mr. Bundy and his "Malicious-men".

I do not honestly know if President Obama was directly consulted about this at any point, nor do I believe it's important if he was, or wasn't.
But if he was, this is just another example of chess versus checkers.

If he wasn't, someone else further down the totem pole has been watching him (or someone like him) play chess and decided that chess was indeed the way to play this out.

Game ain't over yet!
Bundy et all just think it is.
How very foolish of them, but it's to be expected.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/16/14 06:35 PM

Originally Posted By: logtroll


I think the amateur militia certainly behaved in a ham-handed manner, and without any legal basis for their actions.


It's a mistake to keep calling these folks a militia.
Of course I figure you know that but seeing as how they're being portrayed as such by the media, I get it.

But we both know, ain't no militia.
They're domestic terrorists.
WHITE domestic right wing terrorists.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/16/14 07:16 PM

Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas
But we both know, ain't no militia.
They're domestic terrorists.
WHITE domestic right wing terrorists.

Just like that guy who shot up the Jewish Center over the weekend.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/16/14 08:02 PM

Yeppers...
Posted by: rporter314

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/16/14 08:58 PM

apparently this character appealed to arguments of the posse comitatus ... perhaps this is why beck dropped the issue

hannity on the other hand is probably ignorant and glossed over Bundy's appeal to be arrested by the county sheriff and began fomenting rebellion

today hannity thinks after twenty years the governments response is ridiculous ... i had to wonder what he would have thought of Pres Washington's response to the distillers of western pennsylvania
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/17/14 12:23 AM

Bundy has help from all corners.
Why there's even a man runnin for a seat in the
House of Representin!



Not too far from:

Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/17/14 03:32 PM

Ma, are you completely oblivious to the disconnect between your position on this and, say, voter ID? The only consistent thread I see is, "what's good for my party?" If one believes in "law and order" and "respect for the rule of law", or purports to, one cannot support Bundy and his clansmen and kith. This was not some "popular uprising", this was a gathering of the fringe. This was not some arbitrary enforcemet of government privilege, this was armed robbery by a group of thugs with guns - and not by the BLM, who have law, right, and reason on their side. I am looking forward to his criminal trial and incarceration.
Posted by: Scoutgal

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/17/14 03:58 PM

Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas
Originally Posted By: logtroll


I think the amateur militia certainly behaved in a ham-handed manner, and without any legal basis for their actions.


It's a mistake to keep calling these folks a militia.
Of course I figure you know that but seeing as how they're being portrayed as such by the media, I get it.

But we both know, ain't no militia.
They're domestic terrorists.
WHITE domestic right wing terrorists.


They are nothing more than a gang like the Crips or the Bloods.
Posted by: Ma_Republican

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/17/14 04:41 PM

Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
Ma, are you completely oblivious to the disconnect between your position on this and, say, voter ID? The only consistent thread I see is, "what's good for my party?" If one believes in "law and order" and "respect for the rule of law", or purports to, one cannot support Bundy and his clansmen and kith. This was not some "popular uprising", this was a gathering of the fringe. This was not some arbitrary enforcemet of government privilege, this was armed robbery by a group of thugs with guns - and not by the BLM, who have law, right, and reason on their side. I am looking forward to his criminal trial and incarceration.


NW,
Maybe I am sympathetic toward this, but that was not what my post was meant for. I mean, if somebody can get an easement against new construction because it will block their view, then this guy deserves to use the land that he has been using since 1877. Also, since the Fed has eliminated private or state ownership of almost 90% of the land in NV, it would seem a pretty good idea to allow land use that actually contributes to the economy.

The Fed comes in and instead of arresting the farmer, they blockade the farmer from his cattle? Give me a break! Once again, the Federal Government has to get in touch with its inner 1984 mentality. If the guy is arrested and tried, and convicted then he deserves what he gets. I do predict that the trial will be moved out of state and that the jury will contain none of his peers because if you put a single NV cattle rancher on that jury it would end, at best, as hung.
Posted by: Scoutgal

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/17/14 05:49 PM

Originally Posted By: Ma_Republican
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
Ma, are you completely oblivious to the disconnect between your position on this and, say, voter ID? The only consistent thread I see is, "what's good for my party?" If one believes in "law and order" and "respect for the rule of law", or purports to, one cannot support Bundy and his clansmen and kith. This was not some "popular uprising", this was a gathering of the fringe. This was not some arbitrary enforcemet of government privilege, this was armed robbery by a group of thugs with guns - and not by the BLM, who have law, right, and reason on their side. I am looking forward to his criminal trial and incarceration.


NW,
Maybe I am sympathetic toward this, but that was not what my post was meant for. I mean, if somebody can get an easement against new construction because it will block their view, then this guy deserves to use the land that he has been using since 1877. Also, since the Fed has eliminated private or state ownership of almost 90% of the land in NV, it would seem a pretty good idea to allow land use that actually contributes to the economy.

The Fed comes in and instead of arresting the farmer, they blockade the farmer from his cattle? Give me a break! Once again, the Federal Government has to get in touch with its inner 1984 mentality. If the guy is arrested and tried, and convicted then he deserves what he gets. I do predict that the trial will be moved out of state and that the jury will contain none of his peers because if you put a single NV cattle rancher on that jury it would end, at best, as hung.


Ma~One, if he uses the land, then he should pay the range fee, like all the other ranchers. He has not in over 20 years. Then like any landlord, the US government moved to have him evicted. It was done in a lawful manor, and ruled upon by the court. Two, he then refused to leave, and made it a criminal action. Three, when confronted by government officials sworn to carry out a lawful decision and action, he then drew arms against said officials and threatened deadly force. He then allowed other people to join him in this action. It was no different than any gang that threatened law enforcement. Four, If Bundy is causing the deterioration of public(not his own land, since he neither purchased it, paid taxes on it or maintains it), then he(and his livestock, and employees) can be lawfully removed from said land.

He may not recognize Federal Authority, but he does not have that right. He lives in the United States of America, and therefore must abide by federal AND State rules-just like everyone else. He does not have special privileges. He is nothing more than a thief and a squatter who has now formed a gang. He is no better than the Crips or the Bloods. He deserves to have his assets(that includes his livestock) confiscated, sold and applied to taxes and fees owed for using land that does NOT belong to him. In addition, he should be arrested and jailed for threatening government officials. He had his day in court about the land use and lost. It wasn't like the Feds came in willy nilly and just blocked him. He had been told several times to take his cattle and leave. He refused. HE is totally in the wrong.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/17/14 07:06 PM

Originally Posted By: Ma_Republican
Maybe I am sympathetic toward this...
The only reason I can see why a person who is not a member of the Bundy family would be sympathetic is because of having an unquestioned prejudice against the government.

Originally Posted By: Ma_Republican
I mean, if somebody can get an easement against new construction because it will block their view, then this guy deserves to use the land that he has been using since 1877.
It has already been posted on this thread, either directly or through links, that this is not true in the way it is being used. One would think from this that the 600,000 acres has been consistently in use by the Bundy family since that time, and is part of their ranch. In fact, some of Bundy's ancestors grazed cows on parts of the same landscape intermittently starting in the 1870's, but the current Bundy "ranch" didn't come into existence until 1954. Out West here, such a ranch is typically a private property "base ranch", which only needs to be 20 acres (I think) and the rest is a federal land lease, which is much like a lease of anything. It gets periodically renewed and the rules change depending upon the condition of the range or changes in the law. The leases are offered on the open market to all bidders who qualify (own a "base ranch) whenever they reach a renewal point. Every time it was used, a lease was involved. "Ancestral rights" to the land are not a part of the deal.

Originally Posted By: Ma_Republican
Also, since the Fed has eliminated private or state ownership of almost 90% of the land in NV, ...
Where did you get this tidbit of misinformation? The land was originally owned by the federal government (ceded by Mexico in 1848), any that's not was sold or given to the non-federal owners, accompanied by legal title. I'm sure sometimes the fed condemns and "takes back" some land in very particular cases, but this land has never left federal ownership. The reason 90% is still in federal ownership is because nobody thought it was worth homesteading. They did homestead the better parts along streams and such (the 10%).

Originally Posted By: Ma_Republican
... it would seem a pretty good idea to allow land use that actually contributes to the economy.
Federal land grazing in the arid West is not a positive economic benefit to anyone but the leaseholder. The cost of administering the leases, and other land management costs, greatly exceed the pittance that the ranchers are charged. "Doing nothing" with the land in question would be a greater benefit to the economy. They don't call these guys welfare ranchers for nothing! There is another set of benefits that come from ecosystem services, that arise from having the landscape in good ecological condition. Cows are not good for such desert ecosystems and they degrade the ecosystem services value.

Originally Posted By: Ma_Republican
Fed comes in and instead of arresting the farmer, they blockade the farmer from his cattle?
Scoutgal explained this one. Bundy owes the federal government money. They got a judgment against him, just like you would if somebody didn't pay you, and they are going to get as much of the value from selling his cows as possible. If there is money left over, Bundy will get it. Removing the cows from the federal land is a separate issue, from which costs also accrue, that can be reimbursed from the sale of the cattle. Bundy could have removed the cows himself and paid the back-rent, but he didn't. He's a standard deadbeat, that's all.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/17/14 07:19 PM

log's analysis is complete. I have nothing that need be added, so I won't. I agree completely.
Posted by: rporter314

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/17/14 10:35 PM

perhaps you should re-visit the Whiskey Rebellion to gain some context of what is really at stake
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/18/14 04:32 AM



Well...well...well...

...it turns out that there was a similar case to this Clive Bundy case involving the Colvin Cattle Company of Nevada was resolved in federal court in 2006, during the Bush administration, with a judgement in favor of the Bureau of Land Management. There was no wailing about big government or tyranny then.

Why the difference?

Since the government that Bundy is defying is run by a Democratic chief executive (and a black one at that), RWingnuts have elevated Bundy to hero status with the added the false meme that the nature of the dispute is one that involves environmental issues rather than the failure to pay grazing fees as the law requires.

The National Review has gone off the rails and is featuring an article about sedition. Apparently lawlessness and treason is comforting to RWingnut, in small amounts, of course.

Now, if Clive Bundy were black, gay or poor, the RWingnuts could give a damn.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/18/14 05:03 AM

Oh, I suspect they would care a great deal, Rick, as he would become Exhibit 1 in their exemplars of the "privileges" and "abuses" of minorities against the downtrodden whites, riches, or males.
Posted by: Irked

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/18/14 05:05 AM

Originally Posted By: california rick


Now, if Clive Bundy were black, gay or poor, the RWingnuts could give a damn.


Not True. If he were any of those things and tried to take from me or mine, like any Real American, I'd see him in jail.
Posted by: Ardy

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/18/14 06:00 AM

I have wondered what the militia would do if they were running things and someone challenged their authority with guns.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/18/14 12:10 PM

Originally Posted By: california rick
The National Review has gone off the rails and is featuring an article about sedition. Apparently lawlessness and treason is comforting to RWingnut, in small amounts, of course.
I was completely unaware of the stunning similarities between Bundy and that rather dark-skinned seditionist Gandhi. I will have to refresh myself on the circumstances of the Indian government squashing Gandhi's ancestral rights to graze cattle for market consumption for free on government land. I'm ecstatic that the RWNutters are finally supporting an individual's right to get free sh!t from the government. I believe this apt comparison should also put to rest the silly notion that RWNutters are racists...

That legal case you cited, Monsieur Crick, is nothing but a load of unConstitutional frippery, more evidence why we need to overthrow the Lord and Massa Federal Gummit. Next thing the NSA will be coming after your goldfish!!! (If you leased the goldfish bowl from them and stopped paying the two cents per decade rent, that is.)
Posted by: Spag-hetti

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/18/14 01:24 PM

Those militia types sure support Bundy's right to swing from the public teat. Guess some things are hard to recognize when seen up close.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/18/14 02:26 PM

Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
Oh, I suspect they would care a great deal, Rick, as he would become Exhibit 1 in their exemplars of the "privileges" and "abuses" of minorities against the downtrodden whites, riches, or males.

I suspect that your are right NW_P. There'd comments about "Obama Phones" too.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/18/14 03:24 PM


After Nevada ranch stand-off, emboldened militias ask: where next?

,
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/18/14 03:55 PM

The malicia won alright - they won the opportunity to be prosecuted for some much more serious crimes than Bundy's already lost trespass charges. Any of them that have any sense will be happy later, when they come down off of their insanity high, that they didn't murder some of the BLM guys in the process.

I suppose they could consider it quite an epic achievement that 20 BLM guys kept their cool and avoided bloodshed. Or they could respect the professionalism that the BLM guys exhibited. NOT!
Posted by: Spag-hetti

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/18/14 05:24 PM

Wow. With all the things we fear, this is the latest attack on our soil. And this revolting malicia (thanks Logtroll) is being defended/applauded by right-wing media hosts. They sure don't match what the right wingers tell us we should fear and loathe.

From what I saw, they are uniformly white. What's to fear from white Americans?

The Bundys are native-born Americans, been here for generations, and I bet the same is true for the malicia. At any rate, there have been no reports of involvement by those illegal aliens and recent immigrants we're supposed to fear.

I'm pretty sure the gay community is not well represented. We're really afraid of them, aren't we?

The malicia has God on its side. Somehow. No, that can't be. Three times in the New Testament, Jesus is reported as saying, basically, Give Caesar what's his and give God what's his. (Matthew 22:21, Mark 12:17, Luke 20:25) And if that wasn't clear enough, Romans 13:7 spells it out clearly, "Render therfore to all their dues, tribute to whom tribute is due, custome to whome custome, feare to whome feare, honour to whom honour. (King James Version)

Holy Crap! They aren't Christians! They are terrorists deeply embedded in the cowboy community. They have been biding their time, waiting for the unsuspecting government to stumble into their trap.

It just seems so weird that they are exercising the rights given by the very government that they want to tear down. Since they don't follow the teachings of Jesus, and they hate this government, maybe they could ask themselves, "What would Putin do?" The right wing REALLY seems to admire him.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/18/14 05:32 PM

Originally Posted By: Spag-hetti
Wow. With all the things we fear, this is the latest attack on our soil. And this revolting malicia (thanks Logtroll) is being defended/applauded by right-wing media hosts.

Sean Hannity and Alex Jones are leading the Wingnut Clown Parade.

Originally Posted By: Spag-hetti
They sure don't match what the right wingers tell us we should fear and loathe.

From what I saw, they are uniformly white. What's to fear from white Americans?

According to this article, T-Baggers are old and white. Hmm

No wonder they are so bitter. coffee
Posted by: Ardy

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/19/14 01:31 AM

From what I read
Bundy was paying range fees till 1993

At that time Blm took over management of the land

They decided that the number of cattle on the land exceeded capacity
And. Reduced permitted number of cattle

Bundy refused the change and stopped paying range fees
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/19/14 04:42 AM

Originally Posted By: Ardy
From what I read
Bundy was paying range fees till 1993

At that time Blm took over management of the land ...

The BLM was managing the land prior to 1993, as well, with multiple management objectives. Grazing had long been the #1 objective, however, due in no small part to politics, and no large part to ecological science. The BLM reduced the stocking levels for cows in 1993 in response to ecological issues and Bundy objected. Many ranchers took advantage of a chance to get refunds from the BLM on leases and payments for "improvements" to the federally owned land (fencing, watering infrastructure) that they had paid for, if they wanted to stop grazing as a result of the reduced stocking levels.

Unlike his neighbors, Bundy just got mad and refused to comply and stopped paying. Then is when his steady creation of legal fictions began, along with the story that his family had been ranching the land long before the federal government became involved. The problem with that story is the only reason the Bundy ancestors were there is because the federal government acquired the land from Mexico as a result of the war (1848) and opened it for homesteading to Americans. The U.S. had to be involved before the Bundy ancestors or they would have had to be Mexicans (or illegals in Mexico).

The reason only about 10% of what became the state of Nevada is private is because much of the land was too barren to homestead. One department or another of the federal government has managed the land in question since 1848, the BLM being the agency in charge since 1948.

A great irony is that this land was never suited for cattle grazing on an ecologically sustainable basis in the first place. In the late 1800's, a very large portion of federal land under grazing in the Southwest, most of it by large companies owned by wealthy easterners, was in a severely overgrazed condition. A period of droughts completed the near destruction of the ecosystems - as I recollect from a historical analysis out of Northern Arizona University, an estimated 80% of all topsoil was lost to wind and water erosion because of the severely degraded watershed condition caused by cows and sheep.

Take a look at the photos accompanying this story and imagine cows living on that landscape. Bundy has been running between 600 and 900 head in the past ten years on 600,000 acres. Basic math shows that it takes on average 800 acres per cow to keep them fed, and that's leaving them on the range only part of the year. The standard grazing fee is something like $1.75 per AUM (animal unit month, which means a cow, or cow and calf). If the grazing is only eight months of the year, that's $14 per AUM, or 1-3/4 cents per acre per year. If the Bundy clan had been leasing the land continuously since 1877 (137 years) they would have paid a total of only $2.40 per acre in fees in today's dollars! That's a right worth defending!! (Unless you are a taxpayer, or someone who cares about environmental health, or the economy, or the law, or intelligence...)

Cows should not be on that landscape, there is no sane reason for it. I suppose that makes the issue all the more suitable for an insane "war" to happen over it. Hmm
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/19/14 10:06 PM

Thank you LT for what appears to be a sterling analysis of the issue at hand. ThumbsUp
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/20/14 02:10 PM

Thanks, JH. Abuse of public lands and federally subsidized NonCon "custom and culture" (welfare ranchers) have a special place in my heart and I simply love to rhapsodize thereon.

Speaking of traitors, Bundy and his malicia friends are in that thrilling position of desperately needing to succeed at the overthrow of the government in order to escape being forever branded as seditionists and traitors. I guess that they reached a point where beer and reality TV shows just weren't filling their lives to the brim anymore.

Crazy bastids.
Posted by: Scoutgal

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/20/14 02:18 PM

Originally Posted By: logtroll
Thanks, JH. Abuse of public lands and federally subsidized NonCon "custom and culture" (welfare ranchers) have a special place in my heart and I simply love to rhapsodize thereon.

Speaking of traitors, Bundy and his malicia friends are in that thrilling position of desperately needing to succeed at the overthrow of the government in order to escape being forever branded as seditionists and traitors. I guess that they reached a point where beer and reality TV shows just weren't filling their lives to the brim anymore.

Crazy bastids.


LOL
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/20/14 02:50 PM

I am wondering if the posts of factual information about the Bundy Rebellion have influenced MaR's sympathies at all? Hmm
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/20/14 03:37 PM

Originally Posted By: logtroll
I am wondering if the posts of factual information about the Bundy Rebellion have influenced MaR's sympathies at all? Hmm

If presenting factual information to Bundy supporters at Greta's is any indication, I'd say "no!" This is why they keep losing elections.
Posted by: Ma_Republican

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/21/14 03:14 PM

Originally Posted By: logtroll
I am wondering if the posts of factual information about the Bundy Rebellion have influenced MaR's sympathies at all? Hmm


I have an instinctual distrust of the government, especially a government that sends armed soldiers against its population. One can be sympathetic and still see right from wrong. As I stated before, Bundy should have been arrested and dragged before a judge. I am also pretty sure that the Federal government shouldn't own 90% of any state's property.

I am encouraged to see the people take a stand and discouraged to see the Fed insert armed "agents" into a civil disobedience dispute. There is a lot of wrong to spread around in this situation and the only good thing that happened was that the BLM took their people out before somebody got hurt. There are times in history when the people have to take a stand against the natural urge of the central government to abuse its power in the name of subduing the populous. This time clearer heads prevailed, the next time, or the time after, they may not. As was proven at Ruby Ridge, human nature is unpredictable, on both sides of the line.

I repeat, arrest him, put him on trial and send him to jail. Get a court order to confiscate his property for past due grazing fees and act like the authority and not a gang of thugs who is willing to maim and kill to achieve its goals.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/21/14 03:50 PM

You know, MaR, the BLM guys are part of their law enforcement staff. I guess all police who are on law enforcement duty are "armed soldiers", in your anti-gummit view?

What about the so-called "militia", you don't see them as illegitimate armed rebels? What law were they enforcing?

My real question to you, though, was about the economics of arid public lands ranching. I thought you were, above all else, an advocate of fiscal prudence - of not wasting tax dollars. So why are you, and all those malicia folks, supporting the Bundy family's 100+ years of sponging off of the taxpayers? (I'm beginning to think ya'll are closet Hindus, what with all the cow worship and all.)

Of secondary interest to me is if you still think that the federal government has been confiscating state, county, and private land.
Posted by: Ardy

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/21/14 04:32 PM

Just to be a little more clear on the land ownership issue

The land in question used to belong to Mexico.

But we fought a war with Mexico and the us gov
The fed gov expended resources to fight this war
Soldiers from all over the nation fought And died in this war
At the time there were no states or counties in this area

So at what point did this land that we spent fought and died for become state or county property

Also. I am curious to learn why it is that the gov does not continue to own 99% of states like California that were similarly acquired. Enormous amounts of good land has been transitioned from public to private ownership. People certainly could have homesteaded on this rich land as they did elsewhere. The question being. Why the apparent lack of interest in this land.

Also I note that the bundy actually own a ranch that is their own land. If the us gov is keeping all this land for themselves. How did this privately owned ranch come into existence. .
Posted by: Ardy

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/21/14 04:36 PM

Btw
I read an interview of bundy where he rejects any federal authority whatsoever. Essentially he denies that the fed gov has any valid existence or authority. Other than fighting a war for him to graze his cattle there
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/21/14 05:11 PM

Originally Posted By: Ardy
Btw
I read an interview of bundy where he rejects any federal authority whatsoever. Essentially he denies that the fed gov has any valid existence or authority. Other than fighting a war for him to graze his cattle there

Bundy is your typical domestic terrorist T-Bagger.
Posted by: Ma_Republican

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/21/14 05:42 PM

Originally Posted By: Ardy
Just to be a little more clear on the land ownership issue

The land in question used to belong to Mexico.

But we fought a war with Mexico and the us gov
The fed gov expended resources to fight this war
Soldiers from all over the nation fought And died in this war
At the time there were no states or counties in this area

So at what point did this land that we spent fought and died for become state or county property

Also. I am curious to learn why it is that the gov does not continue to own 99% of states like California that were similarly acquired. Enormous amounts of good land has been transitioned from public to private ownership. People certainly could have homesteaded on this rich land as they did elsewhere. The question being. Why the apparent lack of interest in this land.

Also I note that the bundy actually own a ranch that is their own land. If the us gov is keeping all this land for themselves. How did this privately owned ranch come into existence. .


1) If the Fed own almost 90% of the physical property a state contains, how can that state be considered an independent state?

2) I do not advocate military action by anybody except for the military. The Posse Comitatus Act forbids the US military from being use inside our border except during a national emergency. These people may have been called "agents" as a way to get past the letter of the law, but they are, in effect, an armed service of the Federal government. They could have called on the governor to call up national guard troops to remove the cattle and it would have been ignored by everybody except the local press, but instead they wanted to make as much noise as possible and got exactly what they wanted. They just didn't anticipate the amount of support that Bundy would get both locally and nationally.

3)Where did I say that I thought that the people who took up arms were acting properly? As a matter of fact I stated that I thought that the situation would have escalated out of control had the Fed not pulled their people out. While I blame the Fed for creating the situation, I in no way advocate violence. What I advocate is common sense. Arrest Bundy, put him on trial and convict him.

This situation sucks! It never should have come to this, but it did. I blame both sides, and while I may be sympathetic to Bundy because I do not believe that the Fed should be allowed to control the majority of area within any state, Bundy is a deadbeat and should be brought to trial. There is no straight line path to enlightenment in this story. It meanders along a twisted path full of ulterior motives and cynical thoughts. Personally, I believe that there was money to made off of the land, probably shady money that political interests did not want to become public.

In the end, it is always about politics. Events such as this is one is why politics are always so fascinating.
Posted by: Ma_Republican

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/21/14 05:44 PM

Originally Posted By: california rick
Originally Posted By: Ardy
Btw
I read an interview of bundy where he rejects any federal authority whatsoever. Essentially he denies that the fed gov has any valid existence or authority. Other than fighting a war for him to graze his cattle there

Bundy is your typical domestic terrorist T-Bagger.


Bundy is a moron, but there is no law against being a moron.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/21/14 05:56 PM


I will just be one of the godless socialists who will be first against the wall when the T-Bagger's revolution comes.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/21/14 06:39 PM

Originally Posted By: Ma_Republican
In the end, it is always about politics. Events such as this is one is why politics are always so fascinating.

Not politics - law enforcement. Not civil disobedience - armed resistance to the enforcement of law. Most law enforcement types pack heat, do they not? Are you one a them commies who think the cops should be unarmed?

Are my questions too hard to engage? We made a little headway on the question of federal land ownership, but I'd say the answer to my question of you is that you still aren't persuaded that the land in dispute is legitimately owned by the federal government. But you have no evidence that it is not.

I am most interested in why you support welfare when it comes to a prick in Nevada grazing cows on our property, hugely subsidized even before he went all deadbeat on the rent. Does that square with Republican fiscal principle? (PS; this is a political question, so here's where you can enjoy the discussion).
Posted by: Ardy

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/21/14 07:01 PM

Ma
So you are saying that the statehood of Nevada is a fiction and they shoulld return to being a territory. Or are you saying that the fed should transfer all property to the state of Nevada. Perhaps Nevada can buy this land from the Feds. Probably the citizens of Nevada will pay higher taxes to buy the land so bundy can graze for free

Ma
You still did not identify the mechanism by which us gov should divest itself of this land. Land which we paid for with a war

Nor did you clarify why other states that started out like Nevada transition to largely private ownership. What is so specially different in the case of Nevada
Posted by: Ma_Republican

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/21/14 10:46 PM

Originally Posted By: Ardy
Ma
So you are saying that the statehood of Nevada is a fiction and they shoulld return to being a territory. Or are you saying that the fed should transfer all property to the state of Nevada. Perhaps Nevada can buy this land from the Feds. Probably the citizens of Nevada will pay higher taxes to buy the land so bundy can graze for free

Ma
You still did not identify the mechanism by which us gov should divest itself of this land. Land which we paid for with a war

Nor did you clarify why other states that started out like Nevada transition to largely private ownership. What is so specially different in the case of Nevada



As can be seen from the link below, land ownership in the West is dominated by the Fed. In reality I don't care how to transition it to state management, but it should belong to the state and the state should be able to decide how the land is used inside their borders.

Take a look at the link and look at the percentage of fed land.

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/property/2011/04/who-owns-the-west.html
Posted by: Ma_Republican

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/21/14 10:50 PM

Originally Posted By: logtroll
Originally Posted By: Ma_Republican
In the end, it is always about politics. Events such as this is one is why politics are always so fascinating.

Not politics - law enforcement. Not civil disobedience - armed resistance to the enforcement of law. Most law enforcement types pack heat, do they not? Are you one a them commies who think the cops should be unarmed?

Are my questions too hard to engage? We made a little headway on the question of federal land ownership, but I'd say the answer to my question of you is that you still aren't persuaded that the land in dispute is legitimately owned by the federal government. But you have no evidence that it is not.

I am most interested in why you support welfare when it comes to a prick in Nevada grazing cows on our property, hugely subsidized even before he went all deadbeat on the rent. Does that square with Republican fiscal principle? (PS; this is a political question, so here's where you can enjoy the discussion).


I did not say I supported him, what I said was that I was somewhat sympathetic but thought he should be arrested and tried. Also, this was a case of civil disobedience, almost by definition. The fact that is was committed by a moron who has no clue doesn't change the fact.

Why is the BLM armed? That is really the ultimate question. Is everybody in the Fed armed and incompetent?
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/21/14 11:23 PM

Originally Posted By: Ma_Republican
Why is the BLM armed?
Because they are BLM law enforcement officers. They were there to enforce the law.

Law enforcement. Cops. Evicting trespass cattle from public land. Enforcing the law. They're not British, so most folks would expect them to be armed with more than a billy club.

Why were a bunch of armed civilians there, on public land, with high powered rifles aimed at law enforcement officers who were enforcing the law? What principle or law were they enforcing?

I know, you have a blinding prejudice against the gummit and so everything the gummit does is bad. But that doesn't make you right, it just makes you a sucker for the Koch brothers white line.

Now back to the economics question, Mr. Fiscal Conservative - why do you sympathize with a blatant recipient of government welfare? You really must come to grips with that before your head blows up. smile
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/21/14 11:51 PM

Just in case the concept hasn't penetrated your anti-gummit alternative universe yet; BLM Law Enforcement
Posted by: Ardy

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/22/14 12:25 AM

Ma
If you do not care how the states acquire federal land
I suggest we agree that the states will buy the land
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/22/14 12:59 AM

I'm thinking about this and why MaR still has heartburn with the BLM, even though he agrees that Bundy is a deadbeat and the malicia folks aren't necessarily doing the right thing. Ardy is hunting the state ownership thing.

So it seems to boil down to this: MaR believes the BLM shouldn't have brought guns to a law enforcement action and the Federal government shouldn't own the land.

I can't think of any basis in the law, or logic, that supports these two beliefs.

Is there any?

Why isn't MaR more upset that civilians brought weapons to a legitimate enforcement proceeding occurring on public land and threatened officers of the law?

Why doesn't MaR care about the fiscal implications of the whole event? Hmm

Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/22/14 01:50 AM

Click for link:

BUNDYFEST!!!!!




Come celebrate TOTAL FREEDOM at BUNDYFEST, just across the street from the Cliven Bundy Ranch, in Bunkerville, Nevada! 240 bands, 24 hours a day, for a SOLID ROCKIN' MONTH!!!!

*NO PERMITS REQUIRED
*CAMP ABSOLUTELY ANYWHERE
*FULL NUDITY NOT A PROBLEM
*GAY-FRIENDLY ATMOSPHERE
*PENIS ERECTION CONTEST: Erect the largest penis in the open desert, win valuable prize! (tbd)

BACKGROUND: For years, we paid permitting fees to hold Burning Man on the beautiful Playa in Northern Nevada. But now, Cliven Bundy has shown us a NEW WAY! ABSOLUTE FREEDOM! Bundy has declared the entire area surrounding Bundy Ranch as a TOTALLY RULES-FREE ZONE! ANYTHING GOES! WOO-HOO!!!

Why should Burning Man end on September 1st? Swing down to Vegas for a few days for some R&R, a few good buffets, and then HEAD ON UP TO BUNDYFEST! All 50,000+ Burning Man participants are invited to attend -- and as many more as can make the trip from anywhere in the world! 100,000? 250,000? THE SKY IS THE LIMIT AT BUNDYFEST! The desert surrounding Bundy's ranch is LIMITLESS! smile
Posted by: Ardy

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/22/14 01:51 AM

possibly ma wants his taxes to subsidize bundy's debts to the us gov
maybe a bill to do this can be introduced by house tea party republicans
Posted by: Ma_Republican

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/22/14 12:15 PM

Originally Posted By: logtroll
Originally Posted By: Ma_Republican
Why is the BLM armed?
Because they are BLM law enforcement officers. They were there to enforce the law.

Law enforcement. Cops. Evicting trespass cattle from public land. Enforcing the law. They're not British, so most folks would expect them to be armed with more than a billy club.

Why were a bunch of armed civilians there, on public land, with high powered rifles aimed at law enforcement officers who were enforcing the law? What principle or law were they enforcing?

I know, you have a blinding prejudice against the gummit and so everything the gummit does is bad. But that doesn't make you right, it just makes you a sucker for the Koch brothers white line.

Now back to the economics question, Mr. Fiscal Conservative - why do you sympathize with a blatant recipient of government welfare? You really must come to grips with that before your head blows up. smile



So, you have no problem with the government arming all of their management departments? How about we arm the OMB? They have, after all, management in their name. Or how about we arm EPA, they have an important job to do when they plant evidence. The real question is why are all of these agencies armed to begin with? I trust a bunch of armed civilians more than I trust a bunch of armed government employees. In general, armed civilians are much safer to be around than armed feds.

Quote:
Now back to the economics question, Mr. Fiscal Conservative - why do you sympathize with a blatant recipient of government welfare? You really must come to grips with that before your head blows up


If Bundy is using federal land to graze what is the damage? He actually produces something that contributes to the economy. I have no problem charging him to graze his cattle, I have a problem with the Federal government owning 87% of a state's land.

The Federal government is supposed to be a governing body, not a landlord. They own military bases, official offices and national parks. They should not be the majority land owner in a state. Actually, they shouldn't be a minority large enough to potentially damage the viability of any state.

Do you really care if Bundy lets his cattle graze on lane that is undeveloped and probably better suited for grazing than anything else? This isn't about corporate welfare, this is about common sense. Turn the land over to NV and let them collect the grazing fees, or not collect them if they so choose.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/22/14 12:59 PM

How stupid of me... I have been talking out loud to a box of rocks.

I recall this dynamic from past "dialogues" with MaR. One can make a case using facts, metaphor, and links, only to find that none of it has been understood - perhaps not even read.

Pointed questions asked and ignored.

It's a world where ignorant opinion, often based on fantasy, is unassailable.

Oh well, I had fun trying. rolleyes
Posted by: Scoutgal

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/22/14 10:03 PM

Local TV Station Sheds Doubt On Bundy's Claims About His Family Ranch

Quote:
Bundy said that his rights predate the formation of the Bureau of Land Management, and he has refused to pay more than $1 million in cattle grazing fees.

"My rights are before the BLM even existed, but my rights are created by beneficial use. Beneficial use means we created the forage and the water from the time the very first pioneers come here," Bundy said.

But court records obtained by KLAS indicated the family's cattle didn't begin grazing the land until 1954. The Bureau of Land Management was created in 1946 (the same year Cliven Bundy was born.)
Posted by: Scoutgal

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/22/14 10:07 PM



Posted by: Ardy

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/22/14 11:34 PM

Originally Posted By: Scoutgal
Local TV Station Sheds Doubt On Bundy's Claims About His Family Ranch

Quote:
Bundy said that his rights predate the formation of the Bureau of Land Management, and he has refused to pay more than $1 million in cattle grazing fees.

"My rights are before the BLM even existed, but my rights are created by beneficial use. Beneficial use means we created the forage and the water from the time the very first pioneers come here," Bundy said.

But court records obtained by KLAS indicated the family's cattle didn't begin grazing the land until 1954. The Bureau of Land Management was created in 1946 (the same year Cliven Bundy was born.)


Note to self
Research why specious arguments are so commonly accepted
Posted by: rporter314

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/22/14 11:38 PM

Quote:
The Federal government is supposed to be a governing body, not a landlord

had you been alive in 1848 you could have brought up the notion, but as the idea of an interior department had been around since 1789, you would have lost the argument.

Quote:
The real question is why are all of these agencies armed to begin with?

specifically in this case Bundy threatened to use force if the government pursued their court mandate .... do you show up to a gun fight with harsh language???

Quote:
I have a problem with the Federal government ...

i purposefully cherry picked the quote as i believe this is what you really meant
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/23/14 12:36 AM

Originally Posted By: Ma_Republican
So, you have no problem with the government arming all of their management departments? How about we arm the OMB? They have, after all, management in their name. Or how about we arm EPA, they have an important job to do when they plant evidence. The real question is why are all of these agencies armed to begin with?

Liar, liar, pants on fire!

Why do you even speculate that this is a fact.

I gave you a link to the BLM Law Enforcement page. Are you saying that the activities described therein are not legitimate law enforcement activities? So the BLM should not have a law enforcement contingent? (Hint: one of the things they do is catch wetbacks, don't you want them to catch wetbacks?) All of the things they do are LAW ENFORCEMENT!! Are you against law enforcement? (Hint: if you are not for law enforcement, you may be a criminal. You may be convicted of a felony if you do something like threaten law enforcement officials with guns in an attempt to prevent them from enforcing the law, then you won't be able to vote, which is the ultimate political act, which you profess to love so much (politics, that is) so you better not mess with law enforcement, or you may become impotent to legitimately act against your government that you hate so very, very much because it enforces the laws).

Are you playing stupid? It's not really a smart move to play stupid. People come down on you harder if you play stupid than if that's what you really are.

The Bundy Bunch are really stupid. And mean. And felons (soon to be convicted for sedition).
Posted by: Spag-hetti

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/23/14 01:04 AM

Quote:
Logtroll explained:
I gave you a link to the BLM Law Enforcement page. Are you saying that the activities described therein are not legitimate law enforcement activities? So the BLM should not have a law enforcement contingent? (Hint: one of the things they do is catch wetbacks, don't you want them to catch wetbacks?) All of the things they do are LAW ENFORCEMENT!! Are you against law enforcement? (Hint: if you are not for law enforcement, you may be a criminal. You may be convicted of a felony if you do something like threaten law enforcement officials with guns in an attempt to prevent them from enforcing the law, then you won't be able to vote, which is the ultimate political act, which you profess to love so much (politics, that is) so you better not mess with law enforcement, or you may become impotent to legitimately act against your government that you hate so very, very much because it enforces the laws).


Nice explanation/rant. ThumbsUp

If you don't like law enforcement, try getting help from some militia types ... or your neighborhood skinheads. Kind of depends on how really really right you feel.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/23/14 01:34 AM

Originally Posted By: Scoutgal
Local TV Station Sheds Doubt On Bundy's Claims About His Family Ranch

Quote:
Bundy said that his rights predate the formation of the Bureau of Land Management, and he has refused to pay more than $1 million in cattle grazing fees.

"My rights are before the BLM even existed, but my rights are created by beneficial use. Beneficial use means we created the forage and the water from the time the very first pioneers come here," Bundy said.

But court records obtained by KLAS indicated the family's cattle didn't begin grazing the land until 1954. The Bureau of Land Management was created in 1946 (the same year Cliven Bundy was born.)

The whole History of the BLM
Quote:
The BLM's pure roots go back to the Land Ordinance of 1785 and the Northwest Ordinance of 1787. These laws provided for the survey and settlement of the lands that the original 13 colonies ceded to the federal government after the American Revolution. As additional lands were acquired by the United States from Spain, France and other countries, the United States Congress directed that they be explored, surveyed, and made available for settlement. In 1812, Congress established the General Land Office in the Department of the Treasury to oversee the disposition of these federal lands. As the 19th century progressed and the nation's land base expanded further west, Congress encouraged the settlement of the land by enacting a wide variety of laws, including the Homestead Act and the Mining Law of 1872.

These statutes served one of the major policy goals of the young country—settlement of the Western territories. With the exception of the Mining Law of 1872 and the Desert Land Act of 1877 (which was amended), all have since been repealed or superseded by other statutes.

Maybe the KochBros teabaggers can't read?

The bold emphasis is mine, to maybe crack MaR's fantasy that the States are Soopreeme! Even the frikkin' original 13 colonies ceded land to the federal gummit.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/23/14 02:09 AM

Originally Posted By: Ardy
Note to self
Research why specious arguments are so commonly accepted

Wingnuts accept any bull that Faux News feeds them.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/23/14 05:22 AM

I admit, I dislike arguments of convenience. Why is it inappropriate for the federal government to own property, exactly? How is it that a State government is more qualified to administer public lands? That certainly has not been the case... well, ever. Of course, logic has no application to this situation, since it has to be a "political" decision. If there were a Republican in charge, the "quality" of the decision-making would be entirely different.

Consider for a moment: the BLM offsets the cost of administration of government by leasing public lands, relieving the burden from the taxpayer, and reducing the deficit. That would seem to be a plus for a "conservative." Yet, it isn't when inconvenient for another "conservative" argument - that government is always bad and not to be trusted. Instead, a spurious argumet is made that "civilians with guns" are more trustworthy than trained law enforcement personnel. I can provide significant evidence to the contrary - but I don't need to. We can look at their behavior in this situation. When armed thugs threatened them, they did not rise to the provocation. Ah, but yet a different spurious argument is made: that they created the confrontation.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/23/14 06:13 AM

Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
Ah, but yet a different spurious argument is made: that they created the confrontation.

...and the other more spurious argument is made: The BLM ran like chickens.

I hate when the Wingnuts say that! mad
Posted by: Ardy

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/23/14 06:44 AM

When the Blm returns. They should do it the right way. Put women and children in front And force the militia to shoot them

Maybe the women in front of the militia and the women in front of the Blm could have a cat fight to settle things
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/23/14 02:04 PM

Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
I admit, I dislike arguments of convenience.

I wonder if folks who do this are aware of their disingenuousness, or if their mental functions are truly in such a state of befuggalty?

Is the GOP Rule of the Opposite Thang applied strategically, or is it simply a sign of a low mental-horsepower-vehicle attempting to drive up the Hill of Logic?

Or is there something else at work when a ROTter avoids respect for facts and researched argument in a discussion?
Posted by: Ardy

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/23/14 03:26 PM

With all respect loggy
There is another side to the picture

Being able to present an intimidating logical case does inherently make a person right when they dispute with a person less talented at this form of discussion.

I think there are some valid issues hidden among conservative concerns. Unfortunately these concerns tend to be mixed with large quantities of horse shut Which make people like you and me want to treat it all as hs.

Back to mr bundy and Blm

I wonder if tiger could have been a less swat based approach
Suppose Blm only had clerks and lawyers to work with
Was thee an other path

Could they put a lien on his ranch
Or use the irs
Or freeze his bank accounts
Or get a local judge to issue a restraining order
And have local police enforce it

If local Leo needed help
They could call on federal support
And the whole situation would look differently
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/23/14 07:14 PM

There you go, trying to steer this into an actual discussion...

I had thought about the BLM's approach, which I was interested in discussing after we softened up the wildly incorrect scenario that they "started" it, and they had no business being there at all.

First of all, removing the cows from the range was, from the BLM's point of view, the most important part of the action, as the cows are continuing to cause resource damage. Collecting back fees and fines was secondary to that. I make that conclusion because of some 30 years of interaction with federal land management agencies, backed up by the fact that it is their stated goal. Mitigating resource damage was their reason for reducing stocking levels back in 1993. Bundy would not comply.

If their primary motivation was getting paid and/or punishing the Bundys, I believe they would have already been pursuing the other options you mentioned for the collection of money owed.

Bringing guns to a cow roundup is normal. Bringing a law enforcement contingent to a controversial cow roundup, where there had been a history of inflammatory talk and threats, and declarations of resistance, is normal. Unfortunately, law enforcement bringing high tech weapons, including tasters and auto- or semi-automatic weapons has become normal, in large part because criminals often have significant firepower. The BLM also does drug interdiction work in remote areas.

It is my opinion that if only the Bundys and a few locals had been present, that the whole thing would have gone off rather quietly. I don't think the BLM expected hundreds of maliciamen to show up ready to start a war, they expected to do a bit of protester management. I don't believe they would have characterized their approach as SWAT based, that's the rather massaged portrayal of things intentionally choreographed by some of the activists (did you see the early video clip where a guy with a camera was trying to get a woman with dirty knees to call 911?) The huge amount of misinformation surrounding the incident is a product of digital cameras, a pretty well-organized propaganda campaign, and the power of the intertubes.

The BLM did back away when it was obvious enough that they wouldn't be able to round up the cows without there being an insane escalation of violence. I suppose the government (I believe I heard that the issue has been given to the Dept of Justice for the next steps) will take deliberate steps to "secure the area" for a future cow roundup by first rounding up a bunch of the maliciamen in separate actions, which will probably involve many other law enforcement agencies.

That may, or not, discourage another wave of anti-gummit misfits from spending too much personal time and money for a misguided "cause" that could likely get them arrested. There'll be a lot of noise next time, but probably much less action.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/24/14 05:17 AM

Mister Bundy, the gentleman rancher at the crux of a potential range war, has views on just about everything, including "NEGROES".

A Defiant Rancher Savors the Audience That Rallied to His Side

Quote:
"And I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom.”


"Yaassuuh!!! We wuz so much bettah off as slabes Massa Bundy!" tinfoilhat


Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/24/14 05:29 AM

And now the usual backtracking:

Conservatives begin backing away after Cliven Bundy’s remarks disparaging ‘the Negro’
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/24/14 05:47 AM

Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas
Mister Bundy, the gentleman rancher at the crux of a potential range war, has views on just about everything, including "NEGROES".

Of course he does, he's a T-Bagger isn't he?
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/24/14 06:05 AM

Bundy is now the real life version of Blazing Saddles! ROTFMOL
Once again the snakes are eating their own tails and committing suicide.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/24/14 06:23 AM

Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas
Bundy is now the real life version of Blazing Saddles! ROTFMOL
Once again the snakes are eating their own tails and committing suicide.

The snakes eat their ilk daily on some Wingnut sites. It's hilarious.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/24/14 12:56 PM

So classic that a guy who has spent his entire life heavily subsidized by the federal government should think he is so superior to a whole class of "welfare" people he knows practically nothing about.

And it's funny how a little bit of notoriety makes a person feel like their opinions matter more.

The instantaneous backing away from this sad character by the Righter politicians also indicates how shallow support was for his "principled" stand. Looks like he may have single-handedly defused the next roundup confrontation.
Posted by: Scoutgal

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/24/14 01:48 PM

Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas


So the next episode of Republican CYA begins! rolleyes
Posted by: Schlack

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/25/14 12:06 AM

ahahahahahahahaha

Paging Mr Hannity, Paging Mr Hannity
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/25/14 01:03 AM

Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas

Indeed, Wingnuts are backing-away from Bundy, the Toxic Shytstain. Serves them ALL right!!!! LOL
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/25/14 01:08 AM

Originally Posted By: Schlack
ahahahahahahahaha

Paging Mr Hannity, Paging Mr Hannity

Doughboy is eating crow right now. ROTFMOL
Posted by: Ardy

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/25/14 05:38 AM

Could be this is all a big to. Do about nothing. A statement on the official Bundy Ranch Facebook page Thursday described bundy as a "good man, he loves all people, he is not a racist man"
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/26/14 02:44 AM

Turns out, if Massa Bundy said anything that could be construed as racist, it's Martin Luther King's fault.

What happened to the video of what Massa Bundy thought when he saw the po' white trash on the porch of his son's singlewide trailer?

"Them good folks must have 'em some negra BLM slaves, so's they don't hafta work none, as befits white folks."
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/26/14 03:54 AM


...somewhat ***off topic***

Care to guess how many UPVOTES my snarky post received at Greta's?

Quote:
When Mr. Bundy wondered out-loud whether actual slavery might not be preferable to the slavery of being on welfare (as The Negro generally is), he wasn’t merely asking about slavery’s excellent opportunities to learn valuable cotton retrieval skills; he was actually talking about bettering the condition of The Negro. Also, he said nice things about Mexicans, so he cannot possibly be a racist, now can he?

The Wingnuts thought it was a legit, serious, post. You can't make this stuff up!!! ROTFMOL
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/26/14 03:56 AM

Originally Posted By: Ardy
Could be this is all a big to. Do about nothing. A statement on the official Bundy Ranch Facebook page Thursday described bundy as a "good man, he loves all people, he is not a racist man"

Racists never think they're racists - even the ones in recovery - you know, the ones who have publicly come clean of their prior evil ways like a Friend of Bill W 12-step program? One day at a time you former racists. smile

...as I have oft written:

Originally Posted By: california rick
If you have to tell people you're not a racist - you're probably a racist.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/26/14 04:15 AM

Originally Posted By: logtroll
Turns out, if Massa Bundy said anything that could be construed as racist, it's Martin Luther King's fault.

It's hard for Mr. Bundy to believe that it's 2014 and not 1954:

via CNN:

Quote:
Bundy: I thought about what Reverend Martin Luther King said. I thought about Rosa Park taking her seat at the front of the bus. Reverend Martin Luther King did not want her to take her seat in the front of the bus. That wasn’t what he was talking about. He did not say go to the front of the bus and that’s where your seat was. What Reverend King wanted was that she could sit anywhere in the bus and nobody would say anything about it. You and I can sit anywhere in the bus. That’s what he wanted. That’s what I want. I want her to be able to sit anywhere in the bus and I want to be able to sit by her any where in that bus. That’s what he wanted. He didn’t want this prejudice thing like the media tried to put on me yesterday. I’m not going to put up with that because that’s not what he wanted. that’s not what I want. I want to set by her anywhere on that bus and I want anybody to be able to do the same thing. That’s what he was after, it’s not a prejudice thing, but make us equal.


How nice! Cliven Bundy actually is following in the footsteps of Martin Luther King and his important message that we should all sit wherever we want to on the bus. And if you're Cliven Bundy, you also get to ride for free because you don’t believe in government buses.

See, the thing is, this whole kerfuffle about him wondering if a return to benevolent captivity might not be better for the Negro has not only been blown out of proportion by the Liebrul media, it also reflects The Negro's failure to get what King was truly talking about, because The Negro is just not as tight with the MLK as Cliven Bundy is:

Quote:
Maybe I sinned and maybe I need to ask forgiveness and maybe I don’t know what I actually said. But you know when you talk about prejudice, we’re talking about not being able to exercise what we think and our feelings. We’re not freedom — we don’t have freedom to say what we want. If I call — if I say ‘negro’ or ‘black boy’ or ‘slave,’ I’m — If those people cannot take those kind of words and not be offensive, then Martin Luther King hasn’t got his job done yet. They should be able to — I should be able to say those things and they shouldn’t offend anybody.

You just gotta hand it to Cliven Bundy - here's a man who thinks Martin Luther King would be on his side and would shake his head in astonishment at just how touchy teh blacks get about every last little word.

Cliven Bundy may not make it to the promised land, but by golly, he's sure going to piss and moan about all the coloreds until they get off the government teat and take the bus there.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/26/14 04:24 AM

He's a Mormon, and Mormons are taught that Negroes were cursed by God with black skin to mark them as subhuman and doomed to damnation.

I don't give a rat's ass what the Mormon Church is doing to backpedal on that today, I don't give a rat's ass that Gladys Knight left The Pips to join the Mormon Church and I don't care if they suddenly decided to rewrite all that baloney in their fairy tale scripture books, because if you walk up to an old Mormon and you're black, their teaching tells them you are the Cursed Son of Ham, period, end of story.

Cliven Bundy was taught from childhood that black folks are cursed by God, and that's the way it was, that's the way it is.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/26/14 04:26 AM

My wife Karen's Mormon ex-husband is in his mid forties and HE was taught that, so it should not surprise anybody that Cloven-hoof Massa Bundy was taught that.
Posted by: Ardy

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/26/14 05:53 AM

So is Bundy racist or religious
Posted by: Ardy

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/26/14 06:02 AM

And interesting tangential thought
The Mormon church has an enormous investment portfolio much of that portfolio is land and businesses. Where in the Bible does it provide for this
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/26/14 06:17 AM

Originally Posted By: Ardy
So is Bundy racist or religious

Sounds more like religious racist. wink
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/26/14 11:20 AM

I think the reason why the federal government owns so much land in Nevada, is that nobody ever thought that land was worth homesteading or buying. The US government still has title since taking it from Mexico. (Who took it from the native people.)

Outside of the original colony states, land titles typically go back through multiple subdivisions to US government ownership. If it was not "owned" by the government to begin with, how would anybody prove that they held a valid title? I'm sure Bundy's ranch title can be traced back to a federal land sale or grant, and that is the basis of his claim on his parcel.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/26/14 01:23 PM

Originally Posted By: california rick
Originally Posted By: Ardy
So is Bundy racist or religious

Sounds more like religious racist. wink

Quote:
Cable:
You've got to be taught
To hate and fear,
You've got to be taught
From year to year,
It's got to be drummed
In your dear little ear
You've got to be carefully taught.

You've got to be taught to be afraid
Of people whose eyes are oddly made,
And people whose skin is a diff'rent shade,
You've got to be carefully taught.

You've got to be taught before it's too late,
Before you are six or seven or eight,
To hate all the people your relatives hate,
You've got to be carefully taught!
South Pacific
Posted by: Ardy

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/26/14 03:52 PM

So perhaps Mr. Bundy is simply the product of social conditioning that he had experienced
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/26/14 04:00 PM

Originally Posted By: Ardy
And interesting tangential thought
The Mormon church has an enormous investment portfolio much of that portfolio is land and businesses. Where in the Bible does it provide for this

A tangent to the tangent, which comes back to Bundy's rationale for not paying the BLM for his former lease:

The claim, a general one amongst a faction of the aunty gummit folks, is that the Constitution does not include much in the way of land U.S. ownership in the enumerated powers, just as the Bible, or the Book of Mormon does not enumerate the power of the Mormon Church to own an enormous investment portfolio.

The fact is, as anyone who ever tried to form an organization and bound it fully with rules at inception knows, there will be lots of stuff come up that your lack of prescience failed to rule upon.

The Constitution is a set of rules of government that were intended to give our society a framework to facilitate living together with the least mount of unmanageable discord, especially violent discord. These rules were based upon the experience and knowledge of the Founders, and are their best effort to avoid having some of the shiit that they had to deal with from happening again. They were pretty smart, but there was a lot they failed to account for; like the internet, cruise missiles, refrigerators, Porsches, no slavery, and meth. (I may have missed something, but probably nothing important - oh, yeah, a war with Mexico and taking vast amounts of land in the deal).

From my experience, wise folks would understand that the initial set of rules, for living together without killing each other all the time, would probably need some flexibility in interpretation. Trying to interpret them in questionable, controversial, and inflexible ways 250 years later was probably not an intent. (I have to wonder why the provide for the General Welfare phrase, which appears twice, is not as ardently supported by the rabid Constitutionalists as the supposed enumerated powers restriction is?) BTW, where is the part about it being okay for people with guns having the right to overrule the real rules by way of threatening to kill the rule enforcers? I can't seem to find it in my King James edition of the Constitution.

Back to Brer Bundy and the Malicias Host, if one tries to work out where their arguments about his ranching rights would lead, it is to anarchy and no rules for living together. That is clearly antithetical to the intent of having rules in the first place, ain't it? Hmm As for the State of Nevada being the proper owner of all that desert, how does one explain that the Nevada Constitution expressly refused to become the owner of all of it at statehood? If they wouldn't take ownership, and the federal gummit can't own it, shouldn't it have gone back to Mexico, or the Indians? Why does Massa Bundy get it? (Maybe he could mollify the Lefties and start a non-profit to help out Negroes by giving them the opportunity to be happy slaves again? Probably some federal grants available for such socially mindful endeavors...)
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/26/14 04:22 PM

Originally Posted By: Ardy
So perhaps Mr. Bundy is simply the product of social conditioning that he had experienced

Yes, according to Lieutenant Cable.

(I sense an Ardy treasure hunt... where could that sly logician be going with this?)
Posted by: Ardy

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/26/14 07:04 PM

Originally Posted By: logtroll
Originally Posted By: Ardy
So perhaps Mr. Bundy is simply the product of social conditioning that he had experienced

Yes, according to Lieutenant Cable.

(I sense an Ardy treasure hunt... where could that sly logician be going with this?)


I do not have a planned end game. Just trying to find the perhaps less obvious implications of the known facts

For instance. Consider mr bundy and whether he is a racist. IMO he sincerely feels that he is not a racist but has been misunderstood

Is he sincere or perhaps he is a conscious racist who is openly lying. From what I can tell he seems sincere however misguided As may equally well be the case with many other people who appear racist and who emphatically deny that they are racist.

In Bundys case there is a clear causal rationale for how he might have acquired his racial views through his religion. He would have been surrounded by people with similar points of view. And so ultimately he would have been exposed to enormous social conditioning. In which case it would make sense that he would have these views while not thinking him self to be a racist.

If you look at what Bunde said regarding race. It actually does not make a whole lot of sense except as a collection of clichés preconceptions and assumptions from the outside that is relatively clear. But from Mr. Bundy perspective. He feels his thought process to be perfectly normal and rational. Common sense really.

This same line of logical analysis can be applied to Mr. Bundy other pontifications. Does it make sense that he would ride around on his horse carrying an American flag well at the same time making clear that he rejects the authority of the federal government whose flag he carries. It is kind of ludicrous isn't it. But it makes sense to him.

And within that context I speculate that he has been in a social environment that has fundamentally conditioned him to certain lines of thinking just as is the case with his views on race

People become conditioned to the inherent truth of certain clichés this happens to all of us not just the Bundys of the world.

This happens with liberal thought processes. And has happened for quite some time. And is in Part what conservatives instinctively object to about liberals and their memes.

I accept that critique of liberal thought as having validity. However liberal memes have been extensively critiqued over the period of time starting with Ronald Reagan and in my opinion the threat from on examined thinking in our nation at the current time comes from conservative memes

And this is what I find so profoundly disturbing about propaganda coming from Fox news from Hannity from beck. From Limbaugh. And ultimately from the Koch brothers The danger is not about any particular policy discussion. In my opinion the danger come from the persistent conditioning of the American public. The impact of these unexamined memes will indoor for a very long time.

However nonsensical Mr. Bundy is. There is no denying that his pronouncements struck a chord among many conservatives. This is because IMO. The memes that he was spouting have been commonly accepted by a large portion of the public. Memes like fundamental resentment of the federal government. The meme that the federal government operates a giant police state to deprive citizens of their rights and freedoms. The meme about how we live in a welfare state and that this enslaves us to the state.

There are many more such conservative memes evident in bundys ramblings. It is unnecessary for me to list them all


The point being that these memes have now been absorbed as fundament truth by a whole lot of people. These ideas are not open for discussion or examination. You cannot anymore discuss the basis of federal land ownership. The accepted truth is that it is unconstitutional. It is fundamentally wrong and simply not open for discussion

Posted by: logtroll

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/26/14 08:28 PM

It prompts the question of why these folks have been conditioned to the aunty gov memes, and why they are so susceptible. I used to think that Limbaugh and his opportunistic emulators were motivated by the easy money to be had by working the rubes. I still think that's a piece of it but we are learning the huge play that KochBros and friends now have in the game.

The long term consequences appear to be disastrous, are none of these folks playing the long game?

Has Uncle Sam indeed done the deed in Trinidad and now goes by Aunty Gummit?
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/26/14 08:34 PM

Originally Posted By: Ardy
For instance. Consider mr bundy and whether he is a racist. IMO he sincerely feels that he is not a racist but has been misunderstood

Racists never feel they deserve the label. However, they do, absolutely.

Originally Posted By: Ardy
From what I can tell he seems sincere however misguided As may equally well be the case with many other people who appear racist and who emphatically deny that they are racist.

In Bundys case there is a clear causal rationale for how he might have acquired his racial views through his religion. He would have been surrounded by people with similar points of view. And so ultimately he would have been exposed to enormous social conditioning. In which case it would make sense that he would have these views while not thinking him self to be a racist.

Social conditioning is no excuse for institutional racism

Originally Posted By: Ardy
In my opinion the danger come from the persistent conditioning of the American public. The impact of these unexamined memes will indoor for a very long time.

Goebbels would be proud of the conditioning that RWing nut media figures have on their audience.

Originally Posted By: Ardy
There is no denying that his pronouncements struck a chord among many conservatives.

Apples don't fall far trees.

Originally Posted By: Ardy
The memes that he was spouting have been commonly accepted by a large portion of the public. Memes like fundamental resentment of the federal government. The meme that the federal government operates a giant police state to deprive citizens of their rights and freedoms. The meme about how we live in a welfare state and that this enslaves us to the state.

Conservative social conditioning.
Posted by: Ardy

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/26/14 09:30 PM

Rick
My thoughts on social conditioning were not intended to accept or excuse racism

My aim was to better understand what is going on since in my experience problems that are misunderstood result in misdirected solutions

Propsing bundy as a hatefull bigot allows his supporters to still champion his other ideas and say that his bigotry is coincidental. Also many people will see this guy and think that he does not seem hateful. And therefore he is not a hateful bigot but a man incapable of maintaining a political correct veneer. But still an admirable patriot never the less.

And IMO this is a more general problem with racists. They genuinely do not feel themselves to be. Racist. They consider themselves as victims of liberal suppression of free speech. Increasing accusations of hatefulness does not reduce the problem. A problem of which they themselves are in deep denial.

IMO the problem is not so much this bundy and his ilk are racists. The problem is that they are not aware that they are racists.

Further
When I look closely at bundys comments.
I see a man who is saying something that is grossly insensitive
Offensive as his comments are they Are not really filled with race hate

Instead it seems to me to map on to conservative memes bout the corrosive nature of the welfare state

Of course his free cattle grazing is an expedient benefit of his hatred of big government and his views are internally inconsistent on many levels but at his core I see him as a person who has bought into the whole john birch meme about over reaching federal government.

It also just happens that this smaller government meme happens to carry with it great benefits for idealists like the Koch brothers. The same way that bundy just happens to get free grazing by rejecting gov ownership of the land
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/26/14 09:59 PM

Originally Posted By: Ardy
The problem is that they are not aware that they are racists.

...and that is due to their upbringing by their parents, relatives, and friends - aka social conditioning. RWing media only reinforces what they are taught which making them think that what they are saying is normal and acceptable.
Posted by: Ardy

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/26/14 10:17 PM

Originally Posted By: california rick
Originally Posted By: Ardy
The problem is that they are not aware that they are racists.

...and that is due to their upbringing by their parents, relatives, and friends - aka social conditioning. RWing media only reinforces what they are taught which making them think that what they are saying is normal and acceptable.


Yes
They are the enablers
The people who help maintain the rationAle that opposition to racism is just liberals stifling free speech and attacking harmless conservatives who refuse to adopt politically correct jargon.

. This is exactly the dynamic that I saw on liberty dwells forum. I am not about calling anyone a racist. I do not know what is in their heart or how they act. But it is certainly true that ld forum is awash. Offensive racist rhetoric that is excused as freedom of speech and an unwillingness to conform to liberal defined ideas of political correctness.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/26/14 10:23 PM

New rule: If you don't recognize the US government, you don't get to claim constitutional grounds for what you do. Therefore, if you openly carry semi-automatic rifles and threaten to shoot law enforcement, you are a terrorist. Nothing more, nothing less.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/26/14 10:37 PM

Originally Posted By: Ardy
Offensive racist rhetoric that is excused as freedom of speech and an unwillingness to conform to liberal defined ideas of political correctness.

I know, I deal with the very same at G's. Except G (...and Fox) is no longer supporting Bundy and the Wingnuts are asking why. I mean, if you have to ask... LOL
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/26/14 10:57 PM

As so often happens, we get way far into a discussion only to find that the misalignment of a definition of a word or two fuels any disagreement that might be extant.

Basic racism is, to me, the pre-judgement of a race based on stereotypes that indicate the other is less than the judger. From there we can assign degrees of racism, with hateful behavior being really bad and Bundy-like racism being relatively benign (the kind most folks learn to stifle).

I grew up with some racist conditioning, which was completely abstract in that my Idaho community was virtually lily white and therefor had no basis in real experiences. My Dad liked to bitch about the n_____rs and how bad they were for America, send 'em back to Africa, etc. I said the same things.

The first black kid I met was at the age of 15 in 1969 in a Forest Service summer work program called the Youth Conservation Corps. I was shooting some hoops alone and the kid came up, 14 years old and much smaller than me, and was all over telling me about his admiration for Jerry West (my name is West), which I think he was projecting on me. So we spent a half hour trading the ball and shooting, and I felt no racism at all.

Since then, I still have not lived in places where there are many black folks. But I have noticed that when I meet somebody of that race, if they talk like me I barely notice that their skin is much darker and their features are different, but when they have the stereotypical inner city black persona going on, I am pretty uncomfortable.

I am of the opinion that my discomfort is due more to culturalism than to racism.

Is it the same thing? I don't know.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/26/14 10:59 PM

Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas
New rule: If you don't recognize the US government, you don't get to claim constitutional grounds for what you do. Therefore, if you openly carry semi-automatic rifles and threaten to shoot law enforcement, you are a terrorist. Nothing more, nothing less.

Sounds reasonable. No vote, too, right?
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/26/14 11:28 PM

Originally Posted By: logtroll
"...but when they have the stereotypical inner city black persona going on, I am pretty uncomfortable.

I am of the opinion that my discomfort is due more to culturalism than to racism.

Is it the same thing? I don't know."


---Depends on their actions.
Unlike you I've spent decades living in "hoods" of every variety known to modern America.

Even in the worst places I've managed to find bright spots and the funniest part is, it was the same inner city thug patois jangling in my ear.

It all boiled down to education and upbringing. To the uninitiated it would definitely be hard to spot the difference but the takeaway from all of that is the fact that in all my eighteen years in Venice and Culver City (both heavy duty gang areas immortalized at the time in the gang movie "Colors") I never got robbed, shot or even beat up a single time.

And I'm most definitely a white guy.
And during that period I was also a coke addict...WITH MONEY.

I DID get shot at however. Once by a CB radio toting angry white guy, missed my gut by (according to eyewitnesses) less than two inches and twice while filming the L.A. Riots downtown in 1992.
(Both rounds hit my camera but would have hit my head if not for the camera being there)

Lack of education, crappy upbringing, no family core, no opportunities, no hope and no future combine to create a person who would just as soon shoot at you as look at you, just as soon rob you for five bucks like it's nothing.

Thus I would never expect someone with your background to be able to tell the difference so I hesitate to automatically equate your natural instinct for self-preservation with racism.
I can only tell you what I learned from my own experiences.

People tend to doubt me when I talk about this stuff, and I guess they're free to do so but all I know is, I don't feel compelled to be anyone but who I am around people in that group. For some reason they don't seem as put off by me and who and what I am as one might expect vice versa.

My eyes and ears are well tuned to spot sham, scam and criminal intent in any language, street or otherwise.

Posted by: rporter314

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/27/14 01:25 PM

it is a question of grammar

i suspect the correct way is paramount to the arbitrary way you would like

the Constitution offers certain protections without regard for any prior or future actions on the part of any individuals, therefore, when any person who decides the federal government is not legitimate, it does not make it so, and the Constitution is mandated to protect even these foolish folks

i think what you are suggesting is why would someone who believes the federal government is illegitimate remain in America? but there is an obvious answer .... to remain under the protection of the very thing they abhor
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/27/14 03:10 PM

Originally Posted By: rporter314
...the Constitution offers certain protections without regard for any prior or future actions on the part of any individuals, therefore, when any person who decides the federal government is not legitimate, it does not make it so, and the Constitution is mandated to protect even these foolish folks

i think what you are suggesting is why would someone who believes the federal government is illegitimate remain in America? but there is an obvious answer .... to remain under the protection of the very thing they abhor

Great post rporter314. Bow
Posted by: Ardy

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/27/14 06:20 PM

Fwiw
To some degree I think that bundys position is misunderstood. Granted this derives from his own words.

As in understand it
He does not reject the national HIV in totality. Just in its gross over reach. So he thinks the federal gov has no standing regarding administration of that he views as local or state matter. So in that sense he rejects and does not recognize gov authority

I do not agree. But think that we should strive to accurately represent the ideas that are being proposed.

Btw
These views fit nicely within standard john birch memes about states rights anvd radically limited federal government whose power extends only to things explicitly enumerated in the construction

This view of the situation shifts bundy from being an idiosyncratic dead beat and places him within mainstream john birch memes. Which then also explains why he quickly gained so much support. The people supporting him resonated with what he was saying because they have also bought into the same memes about government over reach and strictly enumerated federal powers and states rights

Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/29/14 10:13 PM

The powers enumerated by the federal government are clearly established, approved and legitimate.
Bundy's statement to the contrary is what has no standing.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/30/14 12:40 AM

Uhhhh...checkpoints, ARMED checkpoints.

Military? Nope.
Police? Nope?

Just a bunch of armed people who apparently have decided that they are the law.
Welcome to the NEW America.

Congressman: Bundy Militia Has Set Up Road 'Checkpoints' In Nevada
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/30/14 01:44 AM

So much for the Wingers claiming that the Obama Nation is a dictatorship...

I have a perverse desire to drive over there and tell the maliciapeeps to feck off.

Unlike the maliciapeeps, I am too conservative to do such a thing.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/30/14 06:24 AM

When you believe in the Second Amendment Beans, ordinary rules do not apply to you. You have the right, nay, the obligation, to use your weapons willy-nilly upon the public, because, well, the Second Amendment. That, of course, is the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, a document upon which you pledge yourself, but have no idea what it contains, nor do you recognize the government which it creates.

I have a friend whose daughter has become schizophrenic, but her delusions are much more coherent than Bundy's and his ilk.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/30/14 12:44 PM

Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
When you believe in the Second Amendment Beans, ordinary rules do not apply to you.

I see that some of the Rightwingnutters around the innertubes are justifying such behavior as necessary when true patriots are forced to oppose tyranny, just like in the Revolutionary War. In other words, for many of them the revolution has begun!

The popular fantasy is that individuals, or small bands of well-armed "families", will soon have to hunker down and weather the apocalypse, defending against the storm troopers and the Takers (Zombies) who will be roaming the land "taking".

I remember reading Cormac McCarthy's "The Road" and thinking how impossible the scenario would be where virtually everything in Nature is dead, except for the characters who are wandering about looking for a way to keep on surviving. The fact is, life on earth is a very complex system, and to have that system disrupted to the extent described in the story would mean that there would be no survivors, at least not for long. And therein lies the fault in the fantasy - that little enclaves of people, with their guns and survival rations, will survive the apocalypse that they seem to wish for.

I have a brother-in-law, a medical doctor, not a Rightwingnut, and we were once entertaining the idea of throwing in together to buy 80 acres in the country, with a stream, timber, and 20 acres of bottomland. I had visions of a wonderful and productive place, building with local lumber and stone, growing a bounty of food, and restoring the stream riparian ecosystem (it was trashed from decades of unmanaged cattle grazing) - something that others would want to emulate up and down the valley. In the middle of my fantasy, he turned to me and asked what I thought about guns for protection. Protection against what? For when the shiit hits the fan and the the Takers come. I plan to be part of a wide community where we take care of each other. If any Takers come, we will accommodate them. Oh.
Posted by: Ardy

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/30/14 02:13 PM

IMO gasoline availability would be a leading indicator of economic collapse. Which is to say that in order for gasoline to be available
There would have to be some modicum of a functioning economy

Alternatively. In a total collapse scenario
Gasoline might only be. Available near a refinery even assuming the refinery could somehow continue to operate during a catastrophic collapse and chaos.

Anyway. If there is gasoline available then the system will be functions well enough that takers will stay in their cities

If gasoline is not available and there is chaotic collapse. I just do not see city dwellers heading out from their cities into the countryside looking to forage.


The country is no longer composed of little farmsteads and their larders of self produced food. The people in the country mostly operate mono culture agriculture and buy the I food at the supermarket just like in the city.

And even suppose there are some survivalists who have long term food supplies to last them a year or so. Then what? Living off the land is very challenging. Even survivalists will find big holes in required skill sets.

Films like waterworld or mad max are elaborate fantasies. Total economic collapse will be much less colorful. And overall something that I would prefer to avoid by most any political arrangement.
Posted by: Ardy

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/30/14 02:31 PM

By the way
It is also a ridiculous fantasy that armed maloti as will. fight against our government to Nobly restore our liberty

I mean our gov now has a lot of experience dealing with armed insurgents. No shortage of weapons or tactics.

But even supposing such an insurgence took hold
Now you have a civil war. Hey look around. Civil wars are really really ugly propositions. And almost never result in Any one securing some idyllic life of liberty.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/30/14 03:17 PM

Originally Posted By: Ardy
...The country is no longer composed of little farmsteads and their larders of self produced food. The people in the country mostly operate mono culture agriculture and buy the I food at the supermarket just like in the city.
... Living off the land is very challenging. Even survivalists will find big holes in required skill sets.

The best prevention against economic collapse is to have healthier communities.

Why do so many folks fantasize about preparing for an apocalypse, instead of preparing against an apocalypse?
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/30/14 05:06 PM

Originally Posted By: logtroll

The best prevention against economic collapse is to have healthier communities.

Why do so many folks fantasize about preparing for an apocalypse, instead of preparing against an apocalypse.
Wise words indeed!
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 04/30/14 07:04 PM

What the Bundidiots forget is that "militias" didn't spring up spontaneously, they were organized from their communities, brought together by their community leaders, and in defense of their communities. Bundy didn't have that protection from his community, which, it turns out, despises him, because he is a scofflaw and scammer. What these militiots do is disgrace the principles and proud history of our nation's militias (not that all of that history was guns 'n rosey). Especially embarrassing was that idiotic "former sheriff."
Posted by: Scoutgal

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 05/01/14 05:34 PM

Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
What the Bundidiots forget is that "militias" didn't spring up spontaneously, they were organized from their communities, brought together by their community leaders, and in defense of their communities. Bundy didn't have that protection from his community, which, it turns out, despises him, because he is a scofflaw and scammer. What these militiots do is disgrace the principles and proud history of our nation's militias (not that all of that history was guns 'n rosey). Especially embarrassing was that idiotic "former sheriff."


ThumbsUp
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 05/01/14 06:36 PM

The more I find out about Richard Mack, the more I realize how truly insane he is.

One of the problems with events like Bunkerville is the stage it gives to nutjobs.
Posted by: Scoutgal

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 05/01/14 08:11 PM

Congressman: Bundy Militia Has Set Up Road 'Checkpoints' In Nevada

And on whose authority are they doing this?
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 05/01/14 11:56 PM

Originally Posted By: Scoutgal
Congressman: Bundy Militia Has Set Up Road 'Checkpoints' In Nevada

And on whose authority are they doing this?

RWingnut authority. Why? Hmm
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 05/02/14 03:19 PM

The weird thing is, although these nuts want "martyrs" none of them wants to be the martyr. If it came to a real fight, they would run away. Bring around a real SWAT team and watch them scatter. They s*** their pants.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 05/02/14 04:50 PM

Patriot Leader Who Threatened To Rip Harry Reid’s Balls Off, Lives Off Gov Disabililty Checks

Quote:
Vanderboegh said he once worked as a warehouse manager but now lives on government disability checks. He said he receives $1,300 a month because of his congestive heart failure, diabetes and hypertension. He has private health insurance through his wife, who works for a company that sells forklift products.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 05/02/14 05:15 PM

Let's be realistic here. There is no "theme" to these activities. By and large, the milidiots are bullies with no understanding of the real world. They live in a fantasy world governed by no consistent set of principles and so full of internal inconsistencies that, if they had any intellectual acumen, would confuse the hell out of themselves. But, they don't think that deeply.

They're angry, usually because they are failures in the ordinary activities of life - education, gainful employment, social interaction, family life. They are "three percenters" because they represent the lowest strata of society. The bottom 3 percent of productive humanity. "Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 05/02/14 07:02 PM

Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas
Patriot Leader Who Threatened To Rip Harry Reid’s Balls Off, Lives Off Gov Disabililty Checks

Quote:
Vanderboegh said he once worked as a warehouse manager but now lives on government disability checks. He said he receives $1,300 a month because of his congestive heart failure, diabetes and hypertension. He has private health insurance through his wife, who works for a company that sells forklift products.

Oh! Vanderboegh is a hypocrite. Quell the surprise. coffee
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 05/03/14 05:27 AM




Pretend Army Boys Can’t Play Nice at Bundy Ranch; Factions Splinter over Drone Paranoia



LOL
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 05/03/14 12:24 PM

Originally Posted By: california rick
Pretend Army Boys Can’t Play Nice at Bundy Ranch; Factions Splinter over Drone Paranoia
It's breathtaking watching history in the making - these brave men and women are the New Founding Fathers, in justified revolt against tyranny, aka America Gone Bad.

What a historical eye-opener to realize that the self-same high level discussions were going on in 1776; defining what a traitor is (anyone who goes against established authority), setting conditions for shooting your collaborators in the back, forbidding junkets to local motels and restaurants because it's not allowed to leave the "kill zone" when a fantasy drone strike is imminent.

I can't wait until the Youtube debates begin about how to structure the government of the New Nation!
Posted by: Scoutgal

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 05/03/14 01:36 PM

Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
The weird thing is, although these nuts want "martyrs" none of them wants to be the martyr. If it came to a real fight, they would run away. Bring around a real SWAT team and watch them scatter. They s*** their pants.


Oh didn't you hear? These Malicious Men are going to make martyrs of their women, when they put them on the Front Lines.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 05/03/14 01:39 PM

Originally Posted By: logtroll
...defining what a traitor is (anyone who goes against established authority), setting conditions for shooting your collaborators in the back...

That stuck out me too especially given that said "traitor" is a member of a group consisting of current and formerly serving military, reserves, National Guard, veterans, Peace Officers, and Fire Fighters.

Besides, I thought cowards shot folks in the back. Hmm
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 05/03/14 01:43 PM

Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
The weird thing is, although these nuts want "martyrs" none of them wants to be the martyr. If it came to a real fight, they would run away. Bring around a real SWAT team and watch them scatter. They s*** their pants.

Their hoverounds couldn't drive away fast enough and their Depend® would fill quite fast. wink
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 05/03/14 01:46 PM

Originally Posted By: california rick
...Besides, I thought cowards shot folks in the back. Hmm

My understanding is that if you are the self-proclaimed established authority, then you are duty bound to shoot cowards in the back as they are scuttling off for hot showers, a greasy meal, and a bed... oh yeah, and because they were running scared from a drone strike that the established authorities were fantasizing about. Hmm
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 05/03/14 01:52 PM

Originally Posted By: logtroll
Originally Posted By: california rick
...Besides, I thought cowards shot folks in the back. Hmm

My understanding is that if you are the self-proclaimed established authority, then you are duty bound to shoot cowards in the back as they are scuttling off for hot showers, a greasy meal, and a bed... oh yeah, and because they were running scared from a drone strike that the established authorities were fantasizing about. Hmm

F 'in paranoid Wingnuts, like Obama is going to drone them. Oh wait. idea , cool
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 05/03/14 02:15 PM

Here's the reason for shooting the defecting, traitorous, provocateurs in the back - it's in the gol-danged Constitution, fer chrissakes:
Quote:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Them Oaf Creepers ain't well regulated!
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 05/03/14 02:35 PM

Originally Posted By: logtroll
Here's the reason for shooting the defecting, traitorous, provocateurs in the back - it's in the gol-danged Constitution, fer chrissakes:
Quote:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Them Oaf Creepers ain't well regulated!

I thought Wingnuts hated regulation. Wish they'd make up their minds... crazy
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 05/06/14 02:39 AM

There is absolutely no difference between Cliven Bundy and his little band of merry men and a warlord in Waziristan, a pseudo-nation attached to Pakistan which only answered to the authority of Osama bin Laden.

Thus Cliven Bundy IS the domestic equivalent of Osama bin Laden and his militia leaders are modern day warlords, in the United States of America, in 2014.

Like I said, they will screw up.
Actually I may have used saltier language but you get the idea.
They're either going to try to detain the wrong person or persons, and it will become their worst nightmare, or they're going to shoot an innocent person, also their worst nightmare.

What do they dream of? Their dream is for big bad gubmint to descend upon them guns blazing, because then they can all become martyrs, which would cause their support from other equally deranged nutjobs to rise exponentially.

What do they fear? Spilling innocent blood because they know that the moment they do (and they WILL, mark my words) the government will have every reason to DO JUST THAT, and turn their little fiefdom into the domestic equivalent of the Iraq Highway of Death.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 05/08/14 02:44 PM

Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas
There is absolutely no difference between Cliven Bundy and his little band of merry men and a warlord in Waziristan
Indeed:
Quote:
A warlord is a person with power who has both military and civil[1] control over a subnational area due to armed forces loyal to the warlord and not to a central authority. The term can also mean one who espouses the ideal that war is necessary, and has the means and authority to engage in war. Today, the word has a strong connotation that the person exercises far more power than their official title or rank legitimately permits. Under feudalism, by contrast, the local military leader may enjoy great autonomy and a personal army, and still derive legitimacy from formal fealty to a central authority.
Wikipedia

Not that I expect these idjits to understand the ramifications of their actions, but they are so far from "patriots" that it is like the term "moderate Republican." This is nothing but a criminal conspiracy, and has (apparently) involved armed assault on civilians. Not sure when, but I suspect they will wait them out, let them run out of money and patience, and arrest them quietly when they get home. I expect there will be many prosecutions.
Posted by: Scoutgal

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 05/08/14 04:28 PM

As I said before(probably on the first page of this thread), Cliven Bundy et al is a gang. Just like the Crips and/or the Bloods.
Posted by: Ardy

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 05/08/14 05:23 PM

IMO it is a little easy to make generalization about the situation.

First what ever else I agree that laws have to be enforced. And people forming gangs that brandish weapons is illegal and should be addressed

That said. There are a few subtleties to this situation

Bundy did not select the militia. Nor does he lead them. I have never seen bundy carry a gun. And as I understand it he asked the militia to stop carrying around their rifles

IMO the malicia there are not evil people. They are people that are living in a fantasy. They have a highly distorted perception of reality

Which is not to say they might not be dangerous. But at this point IMO they are mostly deluded. And IMO the problem is not so much these individuals. Or their gang. The problem is the self reinforcing subculture that nurtures these delusions. And IMO that is the essence of the problem that is glossed over in demonizing this particular group of individuals
Posted by: Scoutgal

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 05/08/14 07:10 PM

It IS a gang. And maybe most are not evil, in the Bundy Gang, but there is some evil intent. They wish to impose their will on others. That is what gangs do.
Posted by: Ardy

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 05/08/14 07:40 PM

Originally Posted By: Scoutgal
It IS a gang. And maybe most are not evil, in the Bundy Gang, but there is some evil intent. They wish to impose their will on others. That is what gangs do.


I agree

But also think there are distinctions

It is not a gang like the bloods. The crips or the mafia. This gang was not pre existent. It did not arrive with a plan. A bunch of people showed up and self organized. In some ways it is more correctly described as a mob
Posted by: Scoutgal

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 05/08/14 09:06 PM

I disagree. While they had no previous plan, they have one now, however stupid it is. And they are using intimidation, as do gangs. They may have started out as a mob, but they evolved into a gang.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 05/09/14 01:34 AM

Originally Posted By: Ardy


Bundy did not select the militia. Nor does he lead them.


Sorry but the evidence says otherwise.



Originally Posted By: Ardy
I have never seen bundy carry a gun. And as I understand it he asked the militia to stop carrying around their rifles.


Generals don't carry automatic weapons either. In fact in modern times they don't even have their personal sidearms on them.
Why would Bundy need to carry when his entire insurgent army is at his disposal?

Originally Posted By: Ardy
IMO the malicia there are not evil people. They are people that are living in a fantasy. They have a highly distorted perception of reality


That is the kind of rationalization that we heard from the Germans after the camps were discovered. Turns out a lot more Germans knew about them than they claimed. And they stood by, and said nothing.

Originally Posted By: Ardy
Which is not to say they might not be dangerous. But at this point IMO they are mostly deluded. And IMO the problem is not so much these individuals. Or their gang. The problem is the self reinforcing subculture that nurtures these delusions. And IMO that is the essence of the problem that is glossed over in demonizing this particular group of individuals


The very most dangerous people down through history are those who perpetrate tremendous evil while working under an egregious delusion.

GOTT MITT UNS! - - and "The Kon-ster-tew-shin!" - - and Baby Jeebus, too!

Sorry but this is a pernicious form of apologetics which I find disturbing.

These are warlords, plain and simple.
They ain't regular army, they don't recognize the government, and they ain't sworn law enforcement, but they function as a bit of both, minus the authority.

In Nicaragua similar groups functioned as death squads, cleaning out anyone who didn't agree with them.

Given enough time and a little more agitprop, I wager we can count on seeing these tin soldiers becoming a whole lot more brazen.

Ardy, I appreciate it when anyone wishes to put a cooler headed analysis on a tough situation but sometimes there's just no place to go.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 05/09/14 03:23 PM

I'll start by agreeing completely with Jeff and disagreeing slightly with Ardy. These are gangs, and but more like biker gangs. They are organized, they do have "membership." They have some organizational difficulty, because there are multiple groups represented. They are "loosely affiliated" but have related goals just like Al Qiada and its affiliates.

Look, they've been looking for an excuse to band together and be confrontational. Remember Homeland Security put out a report that identified them as a potential security threat just last year. They are seriously fringe, and there even more fringe-y ones among them. They are a dangerous lot, and sooner or later will do something even more stupid. When one gets so caught up in a fantasy, one is capable of justifying all kinds of atrocities. Remember LA and the police shooter (whose name I cannot remember). Or Timothy McVeigh? These guys are just a firecracker away from "going rogue."

Thay have already committed felony assaults (on video no less), and threatened physical violence. Local police need to get them under control or turn in their badges. I'd challenge anyone to make a distinction between them and AQ. Except for track record, they are the same, and have the same mind set. They have their 'cause', are convinced they are 'justified', are willing to do violence against innocents, and the history - or their mythologized version - supports them. They want to impose their own constuti-Caliphate on us all. Zealots and nut jobs are dangerous.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 05/09/14 03:45 PM

The cop killer was Christopher Dorner.
Posted by: Ardy

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 05/09/14 05:27 PM

Gosh
Sometimes i wonder about my ability to communicate my ideas

I thought i said that i neither endorse or excuse these so called militia

I was trying to identify the broader problem that is much more widespread and in truth has achieved significant resonance

I was trying to point out the diverse. Nature of the people responding

And the imo fact that in listening to these people they seem sincerely deluded
And where as a gang would typically have clear leadership and objectives
And those leaders and gang members would have huge investment of profit and self interest

Where as these. Guys seem to me to think themselves self sacrificing patriots


And by the way i agree that deluded people are also often dangerous
So i am not overlooking the danger
So

So
Lets assume that we recognize the problem and want to deal with it

We cannot arrest our way out of this problem

And i think that the battle to change minds will not be won by labeling people as evil when they think of themselves as patriots. Public perception on this issue will not be won by the above approach

By way of comparison
Drone warfare will not solve islamic extremism
To some extent that problem requires a more nuanced approach that includes trying to understand the appeal.
And where possible stop making the situation worse
Which again is not to dismiss the danger nor ti excuse what these people do
But hating them back and calling them evil doers is kind of a boneheaded response

And likewise fir the militia. Calling them names gets us no where.

More later
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 05/09/14 06:59 PM

I have never really understood schizophrenics, either. Their behavior has an internal logic - to them. It is one thing to identify behavior patterns and actions, an another to label, or claim labeling. I have tried to do the former, but their actions are criminal, and their approach is gang-like. Most gang members don't "join" to engage in criminal activity either. They join for protection, to safeguard their families, to have a sense of belonging, because they feel alienated. Which of these traits do not apply to these "patriots"?

It is simply wrong to give more credence to their justifications. Also wrong to assert they don't have "leaders." Who do you think the "oath keepers" are? I agree that it is important to understand their motivations, just like it is important to understand the motivation of any gang, or band of terrorists: not because they are "reasonable" or "justified" - but because they need treatment, and the public needs to be protected from them. I think we all agree they are dangerous, and getting more so. Moreover, law enforcement action feeds into their paranoid fantasies... just like for a schizophrenic.

Personally, I feel that they need to be on the watch list and that they do pose a public threat. That is just cold, hard, reaslism.
Posted by: Ardy

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 05/09/14 07:35 PM

I never saidthere were no leaders

Radical islam has leaders.
Does that help address the issue?

Does calling then a gang get us anywhere

Yes.
Many of the people at bundy ranch have behaved outside the law

But if we arrest the law breakers does that really address the problem


And by the way the guy on the bridge with a sniper rifle deg
Definitely does need to be arrested



Posted by: Ardy

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 05/09/14 11:37 PM

If this were a black street gang
We would have gang abatement strategies
We would be trying to figure out why kids join gangs
How we could get people out of gangs
How to keep kids from joining in the first place
We would have community outreach programs

But in this case the complexity of our response is to call them criminal. Gangs
End of story

Correct?
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 05/10/14 12:18 AM

The broader problem isn't really all that broad, Ardy.
Here it is in a nutshell:

The ARMY (and NAVY, MARINES, COAST GUARD, AIR FORCE) is composed of ENLISTED or CONSCRIPTED RECRUITS, SOLDIERS and OFFICERS, all of whom have sworn a solemn oath to uphold and defend the United States of America from all enemies, foreign and domestic.

The POLICE is composed of SWORN PEACE OFFICERS who have also sworn an oath to uphold and enforce THE LAWS of the United States of America and the laws of their particular locality or jurisdiction and to promote LAW AND ORDER while serving and protecting THE PEOPLE.

That is the reason WHY ARMY, NAVY, MARINES, COAST GUARD, AIR FORCE members wear insignia, hold ranks and follow ORDERS. Those orders ultimately come (down through the chain of command) from the COMMANDER IN CHIEF.

That is why police wear badges, which signify a form of AUTHORITY.
These forms of authority are duly sanctioned by all branches of government, via the people and their duly elected representatives in Congress, and their duly elected representatives in city, state and local government.

Now, all that having been said, I fail to see where ANY of these ass clowns are authorized by anybody.
Someone please point to where they get their authority from.
Till I see that I'm saying, "Yeah dipshit, pull me over or checkpoint me, make my day, sucker."

Simple as that, it's no different than some guy down the street (who delivers pizzas for a living) driving a white Ford Crown Victoria with light bars, sirens, radio antennas and who attempts to pull me over or detain me.

Fake cops, fake soldiers, fake law enforcement and fake oaths, but I swear to you they will spill REAL blood sooner or later and it will be the blood of an innocent person or a REAL soldier or sworn peace officer.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 05/10/14 12:45 AM

I'm game for discussing alternatives to enforcing on these guys, or at least to think about what's gone wrong and strategies to avoid the obvious downward spiral of this sort of thing.

But I confess, I don't have any ideas. It seems to me that humanity has this cyclical thing where the crazy goes batshit ever so often and we get to have periods of violence and bloodshed.
Posted by: Ardy

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 05/10/14 01:37 AM

I agree the check points are bogus
And need to be stopped

This is on local law enforcement imo
Posted by: Ardy

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 05/10/14 01:49 AM

Log
I did not suggest an either or alternative to enforcement

Gang abatement doesnot mean that you stop criminal enforcement
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 05/10/14 02:30 AM

Enforcement, or alternative to enforcement, this scenario appears to me to be a downward spiral with an elusive upside.

The perps are not conforming to rational mentations, and probably will not. There seems to be a gamble forming based upon how many of the irrationals there might be who are willing to engage in violent resistance to legitimate authority.

If the first actors are dealt with through enforcement of laws, will that defuse the "movement", or stimulate more participation? Will they be perceived as martyrs, or criminals, and by what percentage of the general population?

How do we judge if this is a minor blip, or if it will be a plunge into chaos?

If the issue you are pursuing is only whether we should attempt to maintain a civil demeanor in the face of insanity, or if it is okay to belittle the crazies with ridicule, I do not claim to know the best answer. But it can be an effective tool to marginalize and ridicule miscreants as a hedge against their success as martyrs, as an alternative to allowing them to become sacrificial heroes in the eyes of others who might be susceptible to their delusions.
Posted by: Ardy

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 05/10/14 04:53 AM

Log
In my opinion the perps are a tiny fraction of the problem
They want to exercise leadership and I wonder if we are playing into their hands by treating them as leaders

Most of the illegality is of a nature where shooting and or forcible arrest is not really required to achieve an. objective. You can serve a warrant or charge someone you don't have to even arrest them. Give them a date to show up in court if they don't show up well you can Arestin at any time in the future six months to year two years from now you can have local law enforcement handle some of this like the illegal checkpoints this approach avoids we sentiment against the federal government. Just pick off these people one person at a time there is no particular rush is there

In the mean time I guess my point is that part of this whole charade has to do with public relations propaganda etc. and things work out better on that front if everything is handled in a scrupulously correct and appropriate way

From my perspective what I perceive from the postings on this thread is a simmering anger and these yahoos and in my opinion they deserve that. But unfortunately that sort of emotional reaction is exactly what they want. They want to provoke a over the top reaction that will demonstrate their thesis of a authoritarian nightmare government is out of control the way to defeat this strategy is to be boringly correct and in offensive.

They oppose the central government and want more power for the state and local authorities so take away the federal bogeyman. Force them to confront their violation of local laws and local authorities

If the federal government needs to act in this matter maybe they can focus on civil penalties like freezing bank accounts etc. after all that is a strategy that the government uses against Middle Eastern terrorists isn't it

Why do we need to be sucked into playing their game of provocation and confrontation give them a little Mohamed Ali rope a dope
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 05/10/14 04:56 AM

In recent time, terrorist cliques like Al-Qaeda and its many sub-groups seem to follow a certain cycle.
They take the reins of power by violence while preaching a revolutionary message that sounds like an appeal to get back to basic fundamentals.

That "sounds sexy" over here, sounds inspiring over there.
Everyone likes to believe that they harbor a desire to get back to basics.
Here it seems to be Mom, Apple Pie, the Constitution. There it's good old fashioned Islam, "like our grandpappies practiced it".
Okay at any rate it most likely SOUNDS like that to the public.

So, the public accepts the little bit of broken plaster and a few bodies, thinking it's a healthy catharsis and they welcome the group over the seemingly corrupt government.
The message has credibility, even if it's only because our Ugly American approach is severely LACKING in its Westernized clumsiness.
And besides, it's Islam and you don't dare criticize ANYONE who claims to be acting under authority of Islam.

But bit by bit these groups tighten the reins and become more and more extremist and more violent.
Instead of relaxing after taking power, it seems to become a red meat addiction, they become addicted to blood and carnage, narrowing the definition of who is a true believer more and more.

Finally the public has had enough, and they eventually drive them out. Most times it takes the military but so far Al-Qaeda has failed to show long term staying power almost anywhere.
Not that it matters, their disruption is often good enough for their purposes.

Here however, I seriously doubt the American people would have stomach to tolerate very much domestic bloodshed of innocents, but I do believe in my heart of hearts that that is what it will take to turn the tide and I do believe that is where this is headed.

I honestly and seriously believe that groups like these WILL INDEED take over the reins of power in some small way and they will start killing.

And at that point the overwhelming majority of Americans will DEMAND action, swift and terrible, and final.

Any action PRIOR to the spilling of innocent blood will be playing right into their hands, and it will glorify them and make them martyrs and recruiting tools.

Sorry, we have to let the infection metastatize and spread some first. The boil has to come to a head before it can be lanced.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 05/10/14 02:20 PM

I'd like to note that the whole Bundy issue has been all about the people and various property ownership perceptions and fantasies, and practically nothing has been "in the news" about the land and its function as a cow host. The BLM action was a result of a move to correct an inappropriate use of the landscape, but the resistance to the BLM is all about Bundy's "rights". The question that has not been asked is, does Bundy, or anyone else, have the right to abuse the land? And what benefit accrues that counterbalances the cost of impacting the land?

We Americans seem to have a blindness when it comes to objectively assessing the appropriateness of various uses of the planet, even to evaluating the actual lifecycle costs of doing a thing.

I was on a field trip last Monday up to a forest thinning project on Mt. Graham in southeastern Arizona. The fundamental concern is to prevent the mountain from having all its vegetation burned off in one big conflagration, as is happening all over the place these days. One of the presenters on the trip was a young PhD out of the University of AZ, who did his dissertation on the fire history/ecology of Mt. Graham.

The mountain is one of those very interesting "sky island" ecosystems, which rise out of a chaparral desert at 3,000' and transition through a range of vegetation types to spruce and aspen at the top around 10,600'.

Our fellow had a lot of information, but the most interesting bit was a show and tell around a piece of wood from a tree that sprouted in the late 1700's. In a more natural ecological fire regime, relatively low intensity fires occur as frequently as every 3-5 years, burning through grass and organic litter on the forest floor; or as infrequently as 300-400 years, depending on the vegetation type. Trees that are not killed by a fire are often scarred on one side, usually the uphill side where a ground fire is a bit more intense due to combustibles collecting there. A fire scar kills the cambium, or growth layer of cells, and over successive years the cambium next to the dead part starts to grow over it, making a bulge with a dead layer in between. fire scar history (not the Mt. Graham sample)

The fire scar history on the piece of wood was quite regular until 1863 (tree rings are a reliable tool for dating meteorological and other ecological events). That's when fire suppression on Mt. Graham began. The common understanding about fire suppression is that it began in 1910, after the catastrophic Big Burn in northern Idaho that pretty much launched the Forest Service and it's mission of putting out all forest fires. But on Mt. Graham the tree rings show that fire suppression started in the mid 1860's. The reason? Actually, there are two; the transcontinental railroads brought cows and soldiers. The cows quickly removed the fine fuels that carried the frequent non-catastrophic ground fires, and the soldiers removed the Indians who regularly set fires as a land management tool.

The humongous fires that we are experiencing in the recent decades, which are exponentially increasing in severity, are largely due to the introduction of cows and Americans (not native Americans, but true Americans) into the ecosystem. We have discussed somewhat the economics connected with Cliven Bundy as a welfare rancher, i.e. the federal subsidy of dirt-cheap use of the land that he and his family have received for a hundred years, plus the additional pittance that he has refused to pay on his lease for the last twenty years; but we have not accounted for the costs of fighting forest fires, or the loss of topsoil, or the loss of ecosystems that provide the planet with clean air and water, or the loss of species, or the loss of incredible beauty...

Just what property right allows Bundy and his kind, and all of the rest of us, to abuse the land for shallow personal gain?
Posted by: Scoutgal

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 05/10/14 03:27 PM

I live in a chapparel ecosystem. Long ago, there were always small fires that cleaned out the dodder that built up. That is a natural happening. Some seed pods of the indigenous trees won't even open up without a fire. But because man has built in these areas, fires don't happen every season. Pair that with the pollutants causing climate change, and we end up with huge fires that can rage out of control. Man doing this and taking up more and more room in the wild has also caused the wildlife to interact more and more with humans at their peril. The extreme drought has also force wildlife to come into town looking to quench their thirst.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 05/11/14 12:38 PM

"Bundy's Buddies" are snortin' koch...

Quote:
This network of so-called ‘Bundy’s Buddies’ includes the Koch-funded organization Americans for Prosperity, U.S. Senator and presidential hopeful Rand Paul (R-KY), Utah Congressman Rob Bishop (R-UT), and Utah State Representative Ken Ivory. Ivory leads the American Lands Council — a group dedicated to advocating for the seizure of federal lands.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 05/13/14 03:58 AM


According to the L.A. Times, Bundy’s son Aamon was attending a rally over Recapture Canyon on Saturday when San Juan County Commissioner Phil Lyman suggested the brave patriots ride their ATVs into the canyon, but avoid the restricted areas of sacred Navajo burial grounds. The response? Aww HELL no!

Quote:
Many in the crowd booed. Wielding a pocket-sized Constitution, Bundy said that the land belonged to San Juan County residents and that they had a right to ride it.

One man said: “Rosa Parks didn’t have a case until she sat in the front of the bus.” Another added: “The BLM has guns and mace and Tasers and shackles, but we’ve got guns too!

It's getting really annoying that this Sagebrush Guy Fawkes Cliven guy and his malitias minions are distracting us good folks from BENGHAZI!!111!!!!!1!
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 05/13/14 01:29 PM

Because their pea brains are so small, they can't appreciate the irony that their disrespect for native culture is exactly why they are still federal lands. If it weren't for federal treaties, the land would still be Navajo, much less county. Of course, I wouldn't expect the brain dead Bundy to sire or raise a son who exceeded his intellectual capacity. Who says Neanderthals died out?

I think the Commissioner realized that State and local laws also protect those sites. The Bundyites are all just thugs, it turns out.
Posted by: Ardy

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 05/13/14 02:53 PM

I wonder what would happen if someone unloaded some cattle to have the graze the public bundy range. What if a few of those cattle had some disease. Hoof and mouth maybe
Posted by: Ardy

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 05/13/14 02:58 PM

I wonder which if any public lands are off limits to the bundy bunch?

Maybe they could ride dirt bikes through the Gettysburg battle field.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 05/13/14 04:43 PM

So...I see no one has mentioned if they plan to go to Bundyfest. LOL

What if I told you that Jesus was going to be there?

Posted by: pdx rick

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 05/13/14 07:47 PM

Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas
So...I see no one has mentioned if they plan to go to Bundyfest. LOL

What if I told you that Jesus was going to be there?

I'd say you were a special kind of crazy. smile
Posted by: Ardy

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 05/14/14 01:13 AM

Fwiw
Recently reading about libertarianism

It's roots are actually socialist revolution against the slavery of the commercial industrial state

Later in USA it was reinvented based upon the core value of property rights

I mention this
Because even though the logic is bizarre
Still it seems to be one of the central issue for the bundiy
Both on their ranch
And the general idea that' fed gov cannot own land or tell locals what to do on it
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 05/14/14 03:19 AM

It's interesting, when I took a class on formal logic in college I remember how many steps there were in some proofs, and how you could go 5-7 steps before you found the fatal flaw. In the Bundy case, there is only one step.
Posted by: Ardy

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 05/14/14 04:29 AM

But again it really just doesn't matter does it
You mix in all the various ideological catch phrases
Turn on the blender
Voila

Anyone remember the bass o matic from Saturday night live


[video:youtube]V=0BQFv83QJ2Y[/video]

Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 05/14/14 10:16 PM

In looking more at this issue, I found that Bundy had lost his argument.... with Clark County as well (so much for agreeing with "local authorities"). Everything you need to know about the long fight between Cliven Bundy and the federal government
Quote:
To protect an endangered tortoise, Clark County has set aside habitat by buying and retiring all of the government grazing leases in Gold Butte. But Bundy still runs his cows through here, even though since 1993 he has been ordered to desist because he has no permit.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 05/15/14 12:51 AM

Quote:
To protect an endangered tortoise, Clark County has set aside habitat by buying and retiring all of the government grazing leases in Gold Butte. But Bundy still runs his cows through here, even though since 1993 he has been ordered to desist because he has no permit.

Moocher renegade.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 05/29/14 12:13 AM

Did anyone else see this yet?
Rush Limbaugh got PUNKED big time the other day, and it's pretty damn funny.
He got OWNED.

Please share if you feel motivated to!

Posted by: Ardy

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 05/29/14 05:49 AM

Had not heard rush for a long time

Seemed like he is living in an alternate reality
Delusional

If I did not know who he was
I could believe he lives in a psych ward
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 05/29/14 12:32 PM

How to deal with people who live in alternate realities, who seem like they could be in a psych ward, but instead are participating members of society?

I often wonder, is the human condition getting worse? Or do we pass through life as in a fog, continually rediscovering scenes of the insanity play as they emerge, thinking that they are new phenomenon only because we have largely forgotten the previous scenes?
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 05/29/14 02:08 PM

I think the GOP is suffering from dimentia: slowly losing its grip on reality from spending time in another dimension.
Posted by: rporter314

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 05/29/14 06:09 PM

i listen more often than i care to admit

here is how he works ... there is a presidential bash engine ... he takes anything resembling a fact and feeds it in ... out comes the hamburger of his reality

unfortunately i am convinced he actually believes what he says

today he amazed me ... he talked about American exceptionalism and yet he had no clue what it was .... have to guess he never read de Tocqueville ... simply amazing
Posted by: Spag-hetti

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 05/31/14 04:52 PM

Rick started this thread on April 11, 2014. A month and a half have passed. So ... where's the justice? Did Bundy win? Would it be OK for other Americans to flout the law? I don't get it.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 05/31/14 06:59 PM

There does seem to be a dearth of information on the subject. As near as I can tell, the FBI and DOJ are looking into the armed resistance stuff and the BLM is pursuing a contempt of court judgment against Bundy for which he could be arrested and jailed.

I seriously doubt that no further action will be the result, but the action could be glacial in speed. The guns aren't going to help when it is the IRS rounding up Bundy's non-cow assets. I would assume that Bundy is already on a cash-and-barter-only economy, what with IRS vacuums in any bank accounts he might have and even the cattle sale ring removed from his use in generating income. Remember, the cows are now effectively owned by the U.S. Gummit, which was rounding them up to sell and recover the judgment. Anyone who buys them from Bundy will be buying stolen federal property, unless they give the money to the court. Kinda impacts the market value, wot?

As for the gun-pointers, their piper payment moments may come when a county sheriff pulls them over for a taillight out and then says, "Hmmmm, seems to be a federal warrant against you for threatening an officer of the law with a deadly weapon in Nevada back in April... would you please step out of the car?"

If things go right with this, there may not be much for news.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 05/31/14 09:21 PM

"Please step out of the car..."

Seen any of the dashcam videos of sovereign citizens being pulled over yet?
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 06/01/14 01:05 AM

I guess that could go viral... LOL
Posted by: Spag-hetti

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 06/10/14 12:37 AM

And now we find that Jerad and Amanda Miller, the Las Vegas cop killers, spent time this spring at, where else, Cliven Bundy's ranch.

I fervently hope that Rush and every other shock jock, and every Tea Bagger who called the Bundys and their militia supporters patriots is called out for inspiring just this kind of violence.
Posted by: Ardy

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 06/10/14 01:26 AM

Originally Posted By: Spag-hetti
And now we find that Jerad and Amanda Miller, the Las Vegas cop killers, spent time this spring at, where else, Cliven Bundy's ranch.

I fervently hope that Rush and every other shock jock, and every Tea Bagger who called the Bundys and their militia supporters patriots is called out for inspiring just this kind of violence.


But but....
they sounded so normal
just ik al the other people at the ranch
just plain folks who hated the government and were looking for an opportunity to have their own waco moment
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 06/10/14 01:31 AM

It does appear that the Bundy Incident jacked these folks up into a desperate need to do some violence to some authorities. Apparently the rush of backing down the jack booted Fed thugs gave these mentally unstable patriots the necessary courage to be immensely stupid.

Has anyone discovered that they were closet Libtards, yet?
Posted by: Spag-hetti

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 06/10/14 03:39 AM

Birds of a feather flock it up together.

I sincerely believe that getting away with one act of armed civil disobedience emboldened this troubled couple to kill people and yell their cuss-word laden political statements and then go down in, what I'm sure in their minds was "a blaze of glory."

How in the world can nuts like this think they are attacking the government when they slaughter innocent Americans? They attack unarmed people ... or a couple of unsuspecting cops having lunch ... and feel like heroes? How brave is that? How heroic?

Sigh. But we need to protect their right to bear arms. Because ...
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 06/10/14 05:13 AM

From the linked article: "A patron at the store who carried a firearm confronted Jerad Miller, not realizing that he was accompanied by Amanda Miller, who shot and killed the man, police said. He was identified as 31-year-old Joseph Wilcox of Las Vegas."
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 06/10/14 05:23 AM

And, yet another "gun-nut" cop hater with assault rifles goes on a shooting rampage against cops. 'Rambo-style' killer was a home-schooled conspiracy theorist ...
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 06/10/14 05:28 AM

It's not the firearms (assault rifles), it's the psychology of the firearms. It has a tendency to bring out the worst in the very people who fetishize them.
Posted by: Spag-hetti

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 06/10/14 05:54 AM

Quote:
NWP said:
"A patron at the store who carried a firearm confronted Jerad Miller, not realizing that he was accompanied by Amanda Miller, who shot and killed the man, police said."


Um-m-m-m, tap tap tap, NWP? Please remember that NRA spokesman Wayne Le Coq Pierre told us, "The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun."

Apparently, Amanda Miller is the way to stop a good guy with a gun.

So, if the good guy fails, all we can do is hope that Amanda also takes the bad guy out? I know I feel better.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 06/10/14 12:32 PM

Originally Posted By: Spag-hetti
And now we find that Jared and Amanda Miller ...

Many of the T-Baggers at Greta's have various left-of-center politicians in Joker-face as avatars.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 06/10/14 01:13 PM

Could be that one of the intrinsic problems with the packers is that they all think their hardware came with judge's robes.
Posted by: Spag-hetti

Re: Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher - 06/11/14 02:15 AM

Quote:
Logtroll said:
...they all think their hardware came with judge's robes.


Well said. Like George Zimmerman and Michael Dunn.