You are correct, and those few who saw this ordeal as being nothing more than a media boondoggle, I commend them for being rational. The rational conservatives are not who I am addressing here, but unfortunately they get lumped into the conversation because of guilt of association.
The question is what did Bundy do that warranted them aiming snipers at him? What did he do to have a small army show up at his doorstep? No, he isn't in the right by not paying his fees but that does not warrant this type of reaction. And as you said this isn't the wild west so I have no idea where the BLM get off at shooting his cattle and water tanks. It's pure intimidation and cruelty.
I haven't seen anything about any tanks being on the scene. If you have a link I would appreciate that. Thanks.
Since we only have the information fed to us about what happened on that one day, there is no information about what happened the week prior, two weeks prior, two years prior. For all we know, BLM showed up and the ranchers showed up and they both had guns. I don't think BLM would wait 20 years then arbitrarily show up with dog, guns, and swat unless something provoked that response. Were the tanks that were destroyed on the Bundy ranch or were they on the land Bundy was "using"
Well eventually the court system will decide whether or not it is a Constitutional issue and also what Bundy's fate shall be. None of which -- gasp! -- have one damn thing to do with race.
I'd be willing to bet that if they had showed up in the past and were met with guns then it would have already been made public. Of course that's just my own personal opinion their. But I do think you're close to hitting the nail on the head. Why now? I think that could very well be key to finding out what is going on(at the risk of sounding like a conspiracy theorist). But as you said we also have a large gap in information so it's hard to determine to much at this moment. I just know that with the information that I've seen so far that this is overkill for someone who owes money.
do you not pay attention to events before responding to them? Bundy's fate had already been decided 20 years ago, he then took it upon himself to say screw you, I'm Bundy, and I will continue to do what I want, when I want to. When he spoke about blacks, it just confirmed what people already knew. That seems to be the trend, (ie. Pat Robertson, "not going to help blah... people", Santorum)
I agree and thank you for quietly accepting the fact that BLM tanks and snipers were indeed part of the invasion force the BLM sent to collect monies due. It's nearly impossible to think of a situation, however, where the killing of Bundy livestock would not be illegal. That's where the claim of mass graves comes from. It needs to be investigated. It may be an unfortunate consequence of the BLM commandos that stormed the ranch, as well. We need to investigate. It would be ironic (no?) if Bundy's BLM fees were deducted from a legal settlement against the Keystone Cop BLM goons that broke the law in invading the Bundy ranch and then shot up cattle and infrastructure to compound their egregious error.
That was then and this is now and you DO NOT send in snipers and slaughter a farmer's cattle for political reasons without ending up in court over it one way or the other. Or did you think that there would be no consequences for the federal government's illegal activities? As for the racial diversion leftwingers are clinging bitterly to . . . it's irrelevant. The court room setting will happen. Now it could be Bundy suing the government or it could be the government trying Bundy for being a terrorist. But it IS going to happen . . . and racism will not actually be on the docket. Go figure.
Same goes for these IRS agents. They should pay their taxes and they shouldn't be getting a bonus when their taxes are due. [video=youtube;CUCOeDrrTMc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUCOeDrrTMc&feature=player_detailpage[/video]
You are so right. And don't forget the IRS agents who owe on taxes and are still getting bonuses for it. Guess the gov't is against the law too. Oh boy.
[video=youtube;2cL2ibq8iUw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cL2ibq8iUw&feature=player_detailpage[/video]
By your asinine "logic" there are no snipers then anywhere in the world. Only deer hunters stuck in military and police applications. I was certain that you would reject the proof for a sniper because, apparently in your mind, a sniper would be identified by a neon orange vest with the words, "BLM sniper at work" in neon sequentially flashing lights. But no, that's actually what the sight is for...long range sniping (your disingenuous absurd comments about deer hunting, notwithstanding). The whole point of the scope is for long range shooting and it is a useless affectation for anyone NOT employed as a sniper. Have you actually stopped to wonder why this one particular BLMer has a fixed scope on his rifle? Probably not. As for the police "tank" your denial constitutes more of the same I would hate to be so desperate to "win" that I had to deny the clear unambiguous truth. But that's you, I suppose. https://www.google.com/search?q=pol...=qndaU4bCHIKhyATC7ILYCw&sqi=2&ved=0CDsQ9QEwAw
So you are going to claim that anyone with a scoped rifle is a "sniper". Thought so. A sniper is someone actually operating as a sniper. Not anybody, police or not, with a scoped rifle. And if any of the vehicles in that link were spotted at Bundy's ranch, you might have a point about SWAT "tanks" -- although as a former tanker myself, I have to point out that most of those are APCs, not tanks -- and mostly disarmed APCs at that.
You are desperately flailing here and consistently moving the objective when you are proven wrong time after time I am not the one claiming that anyone with a scoped rifle is a sniper, just as you tried to assert that anyone with a scoped rifle was likely a deer hunter. But clearly in this context, a police tactical raid on a residence, the guys with scopes on their rifles are snipers. I can send more pictures of BLM SWAT team members and you will see that not only do most of the people there NOT have scopes on their weapons but they do not even carry the sort of rifles used by snipers. A scope is of use only to a sniper. Accept your loss. LOL! In order to act as a sniper, as part of a SWAT action, a scope is absolutely necessary. Start a thread about it if you don't believe me (though you know I'm right). I already sent you a picture of an APC (commonly referred to as a "tank") and you acknowledged it. Too late to back out now.
I noticed nothing but crickets from the last response to you...did you concede that you were wrong? Maybe check out this thread......http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=352878 Show me some "liberal" threads like that one......
Right on, Moi! Bundy's opinions are irrelevant. The issue isn't whether we like him or agree with him. Human and civil rights apply to everyone all the time, not just those with approved attitudes. In fact, defending the rights of otherwise unlikeable people is a test of our system. If the rule is that FOOs (Friends of Obama) can do anything, while everybody else (the majority) can do nothing, then we're over the cliff into dictatorship. That's just what Bundy is fighting.
BLM officer shooting a cow = unforgivable offense! Clive Bundy not paying $1 million in grazing fees = meh. The problem with this Bundy situation is that it encourages other deadbeats to not pay their debts... especially when their militant, extremist friends show up with guns.
I already have said many times that Bundy needs to pay his debts. Here, let me say it again: Cliven Bundy needs to pay his debts. There! Have you gotten the message yet? But it certainly undercuts your fake "I hate criminals" stance when you consistently back the illegal acts of the BLM. I guess you don't hate all criminals all that much. Only the old white ones that dislike the BLM. In theory, I suppose. I haven't seen that theory put into practice, however.
Here are the remarks edited out by the Media of what Bundy said. "The 67-year-old Bundy, battling the U.S. government after federal agents stormed his ranch to confiscate his cattle in a dispute over grazing fees, said far more than what appeared in the New York Times and most other news accounts. While his grammar is pretty bad -- and his use of "negro" and "colored" considered politically incorrect (although they were both once preferred terms chosen by blacks) -- he actually was making a larger point, not simply deriding blacks." http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/unedited-tape-bundy-emerges-sheds-light-racist-remarks
You are mostly a bigot towards whites. Is affirmative action or anti-white racism, oppression, and discrimination good? There is no condemnation from socialist guys like you when American immigration policy is racist and discriminatory against whites.
Simply deriding blacks is enough to prove that man is a bigoted idiot. He only sees the worst in blacks. It concerns my why that much just by itself isn't enough to make Bundy a pariah with EVERYONE So his examples are blacks in Watts in the 60's, and blacks in north Las Vegas. Here in northern California, we hve a town called Nicholas. and it's filled with the descendents of Okies from the 30's. Most of the city dwellers live in the trailer park, and they're all white, and they're all on welfare. They call there welfare check their "pay check", and they're a low class lot of trailer trash. When I lived in Seattle, I was there for the WTO riots, and the rioters were mostly white. If those are the only two experiences I would consider.......I could make the generalization that white people could probably have been happier back in Oklahoma wth all the dust, or maybe back in Europe during some potato famine. What about all the black people NOT in Watts in the 60's, or North Las Vegas today?.......are they ALL on "gubmint subsidies"? I look at it this way...I'm an American citzen, and that means I'm one of 370 million people who own the land Bundy stole grass and water from. He's a shareholder too, but he owes 370 million people some money, and I want my share from him, and you have it coming from him too. He can keep his share. http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/unedited-tape-bundy-emerges-sheds-light-racist-remarks[/QUOTE]
