Gawd those "patriots" "defending" Bundy are morons.
Printable View
Gawd those "patriots" "defending" Bundy are morons.
[QUOTE=worstblogever;16000]While many thought the militia groups aiding Cliven Bundy scored a victory, time has shown that in fact, the federal government may have done the smartest thing possible... letting the rancher host daily press conferences where he embarrassed himself in racist rants, while his militia allies?
[URL="http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2014/04/30/back-at-the-bundy-ranch-its-oath-keepers-vs-militiamen-as-wild-rumors-fly/"]
Well, they've started panicking about fantasy drone strikes coming from Eric Holder (that are, y'know, their own paranoid delusions), and opting to instead, turn their attention towards threatening to kill each other.[/URL]
Stewart Rhodes, meanwhile, is claiming he's been assaulted physically, and that the two factions have drawn weapons on each other (that video recording was featured on NBC News' Rachel Maddow Show on Thursday).
The only real losers in this... are all the ordinary people living in Bunkerville, who have to dive for cover if and when a shootout between these nuts takes place.[/QUOTE]
The entire situation just isn't sustainable. It will have to fizzle out eventually and everyone will go home. Bundy will have to make some sort of deal if he wants to continue to manage his ranch. These militia people are just to thick headed to see it.
[QUOTE=Dr. Kusa San;16018]Gawd those "patriots" "defending" Bundy are morons.[/QUOTE]
Patriots would have to be to defend some one claiming their government doesn't have the right to exist...
[QUOTE=dupersuper;16702]Patriots would have to be to defend some one claiming their government doesn't have the right to exist...[/QUOTE]
And who also [URL="http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/bundy-ranch-uncensored"]claims to be receiving revelations from God[/URL].
[ATTACH=CONFIG]505[/ATTACH]
"Any documented occasion when some yahoo claims God has spoken to them, they're speaking to me. [B]Or they're talking to themselves.[/B]"
[QUOTE=worstblogever;16000]While many thought the militia groups aiding Cliven Bundy scored a victory, time has shown that in fact, the federal government may have done the smartest thing possible... letting the rancher host daily press conferences where he embarrassed himself in racist rants, while his militia allies?
[URL="http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2014/04/30/back-at-the-bundy-ranch-its-oath-keepers-vs-militiamen-as-wild-rumors-fly/"]
Well, they've started panicking about fantasy drone strikes coming from Eric Holder (that are, y'know, their own paranoid delusions), and opting to instead, turn their attention towards threatening to kill each other.[/URL]
[/QUOTE]
Why, it's almost as if people who gather in groups to amass huge stockpiles of weapons with the aim of overthrowing their country's democratically elected government, and actually believe they can succeed in this aim, are mentally unbalanced in some fashion!
[QUOTE=Charles RB;14813]The impression I got was that Adams admits to being involved in the IRA in a vague general sense but somehow [i]never[/i] had any involvement in or knowledge of any specific act of IRA violence. Nice, [i]safe[/i] ex-terrorist. (or am I thinking of McGuinness?)[/QUOTE]
I think that McGuinness admits to being a former IRA commander, but elaborates no further. Adams maintains a credibility stretching denial of any involvement ever. As far as I can tell, infuriation with this, along with opposition to Sinn Fein's role in the peace process, has led to several former IRA members naming Adams as a senior commander.
[QUOTE=Spike-X;17690]Why, it's almost as if people who gather in groups to amass huge stockpiles of weapons with the aim of overthrowing their country's democratically elected government, and actually believe they can succeed in this aim, are mentally unbalanced in some fashion![/QUOTE]
The hell you say, sir. The hell you say.
[QUOTE=worstblogever;16000]While many thought the militia groups aiding Cliven Bundy scored a victory, time has shown that in fact, the federal government may have done the smartest thing possible... letting the rancher host daily press conferences where he embarrassed himself in racist rants, while his militia allies?
[URL="http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2014/04/30/back-at-the-bundy-ranch-its-oath-keepers-vs-militiamen-as-wild-rumors-fly/"]
Well, they've started panicking about fantasy drone strikes coming from Eric Holder (that are, y'know, their own paranoid delusions), and opting to instead, turn their attention towards threatening to kill each other.[/URL]
Stewart Rhodes, meanwhile, is claiming he's been assaulted physically, and that the two factions have drawn weapons on each other (that video recording was featured on NBC News' Rachel Maddow Show on Thursday).[/QUOTE]
So all the US government has to do is sit back, get some popcorn, and watch Darwin take his course.
[QUOTE=Charles RB;19383]So all the US government has to do is sit back, get some popcorn, and watch Darwin take his course.[/QUOTE]The US Govt. is complicit in this one- by sending dozens of armed Federal agents to settle a tax debt is abhorrent. How could they NOT know that it would set off these idiots? They could have accomplished the same thing by putting a lien on Bundy's property, a tactic that they do EVERY day to other businesses. So, why didn't they do this? I think the answer is somewhere in Harry Reid and his son's business dealings in that area. And all those patriots need to quit playing war and get back to their jobs.
[QUOTE=worstblogever;16000]While many thought the militia groups aiding Cliven Bundy scored a victory, time has shown that in fact, the federal government may have done the smartest thing possible... letting the rancher host daily press conferences where he embarrassed himself in racist rants, while his militia allies?
[URL="http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2014/04/30/back-at-the-bundy-ranch-its-oath-keepers-vs-militiamen-as-wild-rumors-fly/"][/URL]
[....][/QUOTE]
Amazing how ownership of property has no value when it's the government that owns that property.
[I]Those sonsabitches don't pay me rent, I'm going after them!
Why should I have to pay the government any rent?[/I]
[QUOTE=thespianphryne;19533]Amazing how ownership of property has no value when it's the government that owns that property.
[I]Those sonsabitches don't pay me rent, I'm going after them!
Why should I have to pay the government any rent?[/I][/QUOTE]I think the questions raised are: how much of the land in a State can be owned by the Federal Govt? & Who could manage it better? There's no question that the land Bundy was using is the Federal Govt's, this IS part of Nevada's constitution- a caveat FORCED on them by the Federal Govt. for them to be able to enter the Union. I think that's messed up. I think it is time for most of federally-owned land to revert back to the states, if they want it. At the same time, the Federal Govt. does need certain parcels for military bases and national parks.
[QUOTE=CenturianSpy;13133]Judicial Watch sued to get the redactions elimininated. Not all the emails/documents were un-redacted, but the ones that were showed a clear attempt by the White House AND Pres. Obama's re-election staff to change the narrative on the attack. They willingly lied to us (using Susan Rice- who I think was a dupe in this) and then continued to cover it up by redacting non-secretive emails/documents. They thwarted Congress by refusing to give them the unredacted memos showing this, and it took a judge to force them to do this YEARS later. All for the glory and re-election of Pres. Obama.[/QUOTE]
So what exactly would have caused President Obama to lose his reelection campaign here? Maintaining the same level of protection for our embassies as every one of his predecessors in office? Didn't seem to hurt anyone before him. Being in office while one of our embassies was attacked? Reagan coasted to reelection after the attack in Beirut.
Or is this really a pathetic attempt by those on the right to drum up any kind of controversy they can, despicably using the deaths of our diplomats for political gain, in the absence of any real controversy? The truth is the economy was improving and the administration was making gains in their foreign policy (even if you ignore the death of Bin Laden). The Republican's best chance at taking the President down was attacking the ACA and they chose the worst possible candidate to do that.
This was a last-ditch effort to sling mud at the President that failed, and only continues because they still have no legitimate arguments or controversies other than traditional partisan differences. Well, this and trying 50 times to kill the ACA.
[QUOTE=CenturianSpy;19627]I think the questions raised are: how much of the land in a State can be owned by the Federal Govt? & Who could manage it better? There's no question that the land Bundy was using is the Federal Govt's, this IS part of Nevada's constitution- a caveat FORCED on them by the Federal Govt. for them to be able to enter the Union. I think that's messed up. I think it is time for most of federally-owned land to revert back to the states, if they want it. At the same time, the Federal Govt. does need certain parcels for military bases and national parks.[/QUOTE]
My main argument against reverting control back to states (and the reason I oppose most states rights arguments) is that this is exactly what large multinational corporations want. It's much easier and cheaper to manipulate local and state governments to roll back regulations, sell land for development that would better serve the population undeveloped, and generally get their way than it would be if they had the Federal Government to contend with. Divide and conquer.
And in Bundy's case specifically, he's not going to start paying tax if the state owns the land. He might not even "believe in" the state, not with [URL="http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/watch/radical-racist-context-missed-in-rancher-hype-236481603620"]his only-the-county-sheriff views.[/URL]
[URL="http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/watch/bundy-neighbors-to-militia-time-to-leave-243582019766"]Rachel Maddow interviews Representative Horsford (who covers Bundyland) and there's also a really funny clip of Very Serious militiamen talking about how scared they were of other militiamen carrying guns around.[/URL] And a less funny claim that one of the militias has said they only pull people over "if we have probable cause" - random fuckers with no legal authority and that aren't from Nevada.