CLIVEN BUNDY, Fred: This is for you!

A scathing review of the week in America. Revisionist history isn't history at all and whosoever believeth is just an ignoramus.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/26/opinion/blow-a-ranchers-romantic-revis...

No votes yet

Super duper hogwash. Here is a much more honest review of the NY Times "gotcha" game:

http://www.wnd.com/2014/04/bundy-times-sting-worse-than-i-thought/

I would say you yourself are a reverse racist - but that wouldn't be exactly accurate. You hate conservatives of every color. Refer back to your comment on a man whose shoe laces your fake messiah, BO, is not qualified to tie... Dr. Ben Carson. You don't appear to be a fan of Clarence Thomas, either, probably the best judge on the Supreme Court today.

Bundy is a good man, whilst liberals of every color drool over the filthy-life Clintons.

Tell you a little "local" story from several years ago,. I worked on a short-term contract job with a woman who happened to be African American. What we had in common was that we were both evangelical Christians. If memory serves, her husband was an assistant pastor somewhere in this area. After we had discussed scriptural topics for a couple weeks, she told me that her daughter had just had a baby (out of wedlock). This woman and her husband wanted this girl to remain at home with them. They wanted to help her and have as much godly influence as possible on their daughter and new grandchild. But the daughter wasn't having any part of that. This mother decried the fact that since the young daughter could access so much government (read taxpayer) help, that she didn't need to remain living with her parents. Sounds just a little bit like what Bundy was trying to say, doesn't it? He didn't put it very well. He apparently has his weird ideas, just like you have yours.

And then, there is the little INCONVENIENT FACT that Harry Reid wants that land - personally, apparently -- so that he and his son can PROFIT BIG TIME from a unethical and dishonest deal in the making behind the scenes with the COMMUNIST CHINESE. But, ya know - don't let the FACTS of the matter bother you too much.

I guess that you endorse illegal activity as long as it is illegal activity you like.
And, unlike most conservatives I've read about, you seem to think that Bundy's views on race are OK; he's just misunderstood. Do you really think that Americans of African background were doing just fine as slaves? Were the whippings OK? How about the rapes? Is rape acceptable as long as the person who is raped gives birth to the baby if one results from that rape?
If your views are really this repulsive, I have nothing further to say to you on this topic.

As far as your anecdote is concerned, apparently your co-worker did not do a very good job of teaching her daughter her own values. It reminds me of Sarah Palin, who is a proponent of abstinence only, but raised a daughter who had a child out of wedlock, and broke up with the child's father shortly AFTER the 2008 election. Just a coincidence, I suppose. And I guess that "family values" are just a catchphrase that sounds good when one is running for public office, and/or involved in a debate on a public site.

Just more Republican Hypocrisy, Dale.

Bundy refuses to recognize the Federal Government yet FRICKING RIDES AROUND WITH A U.S. FLAG. Hello hypocrisy! And while I have not heard any specific views about government debt from him, you can bet FG and his other worshippers are all concerned about the debt and deficit - yet when the government comes in to get this fricking MOOCHER SUCKING THE TEAT OF GOVERNMENT to pay up, they're immediately against that, like the good little hypocrites they are.

You make excuses for rapist Bill Clinton all the time. And you are going to talk to me about values? Again, if you want to know about Hillary's "values", be sure to read or at least google Kathy O'Brien's book "Tranceformation of America". OR, look up O'Brien's lawsuit against Hillary [dismissed for so-called "national security" reasons... but not dismissed for lack of merit or truthful evidence].

If I understand your above concern for moral values, you feel the only people who should be shamed for moral "falls" are conservatives, or relatives of conservatives. It's like I read one commentator say, liberals give liberals a pass on morality, because liberals do not expect liberals to be moral. Sarah Palin's daughter is raising her son and loving him, as opposed to ever considering murdering him in the womb.

You know full well that neither I nor ANYONE posting on this board sanction slavery. OR DO some of you? Because killing helpless babies in the womb is morally reprehensible, and a form of slavery and you are "comfortable" with it.

In other words, you, like me, and anyone else in modern American, could not possibly support the Supreme Court HORRIBLE "Dred Scott" decision... No one in their right mind could...

AND YET... you and other liberals personally support Roe v. Wade - another HORRIBLE court decision that a simple ultrasound proves is morally reprehensible. So I will return your own comment to you - your views are repulsive on abortion. And schizophrenic on the topic of right-and-wrong.

See, you did it again Dale - you put words in my mouth that I never said. You continue to support immoral politicians, the Clintons and others. But you see no problem in accusing and mocking anyone (like the parents I cited above) who are good, and try to do good for others. It's too bad that far left polarized politics has become your religion. For one thing, Hebrew scripture is so rich. Read the first 3 chapters of the prophet Jeremiah some day. It just might open your eyes to God's perspective - on abortion, on God's mercy, and on his standards.

Raising kids out of wedlock is better than aborting them, and there's no law against breaking up with a boyfriend, either. And what year she did that, is none of anybodies' goddam business.

But, if abstinence only works, how did Bristol get pregnant?
And if "family values" is more than just a catch phrase, why didn't Bristol marry her "true love" and live happily ever after?
And, if Bristol's courtship was something more than just a political stunt, why did the relationship end so soon after the election campaign?

It's Sarah Palin's hypocrisy!
It's Palin's cold, calculated, blind political ambition.
Get it?
She uses her family as props in her political game. And she's done so extremely well! She has become quite wealthy, so I'm sure her family is quite happy, because most conservatives equate happiness with wealth. Quite shallow, really!

Ever notice when history is revised to give certain people credit for something, deserved or not, revisionism moves from hogwash--to gospel truth?

someone needs to let him know that the business of slavery truly destroyed Black families, way more than any government program could. I stress the word "business" here to separate slavery from the government. A lot of right wing pundits, Glenn Beck included, make the mistake of talking about slavery as a government institution. Slavery was not the government. It was business. Applying our founding principles and changing the laws through government is how slavery was ended.

The Supreme Court that handed down the Dred Scott decision WAS the government.

the 14th Amendment.
A different Supreme Court also ruled in Plessy v. Ferguson that separate facilities coud be maintained based upon race. That ruling was overturned in Brown v. The Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas.
The Dred Scott decision was in 1857.
Plessy v. Ferguson was in 1896.

IMHO, times and attitudes have changed, at least in the minds and hearts of the majority of Americans here in 2014. Here is a great quote from Thomas Jefferson:
"We consider each generation as a distinct nation, with a right, by the will of its majority, to bind themselves, but none to bind the succeeding generation, more than the inhabitants of another country."

I said "Applying our founding principles and changing the laws through government is how slavery was ended." Eventually it was government that ended it.

Dred Scott was a case tried under existing law, laws designed to protect business owners. Those laws eventually were changed. The government our founders designed, when working properly, will do what We The People tell it to. If we don't want slavery that can be changed. Slavery existed for business reasons, not for government.

You "seem" a lot. Someone seems to think this, another seems to say that, yada-yada-yada.

surmise what their position on an issue seems to be from what they express.
I can neither read someone's mind, nor search someone's heart.

You do that all the time here, and then backtrack like you're doing right now.

I want to personally thank purefart for posting specifically for my benefit. I had seen the Bundy story and commented on air about it. I'm not a big fan of revisionist history either, but I am a big fan of purefart. I know she doesn't come here often because she feel uncomfortable and enjoys the intelligent conversation on FB, so it's doubly special that she not only stopped by but posting just for me. Thanks once again purefart, you made my weekend.

Any statement I make is the opinion of me exercising my first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and is generally permitted.

I doubt very seriously if you have read Charles Blow's commentary.

posts is meant to increase listeners to his radio broadcasts. After all, he's in show biz.

The tea party radio network
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/04/tea-party-radio-network-105774.htm...

Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/04/tea-party-radio-network-105774.htm... Down with the establishment, the new players are coming..

"DTOM" {1776} " We The People" {1791}

I doubt very seriously anyone really cares what you think about what I read. I've read and seen the Blow hard on Morning Joe and other left leaning media. I love it when he talks about income inequality whiile making a nice buck working for a major newspaper.

Any statement I make is the opinion of me exercising my first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and is generally permitted.

modern Republican Party. As I stated, I truly believe that what Bundy articulated regarding African-Americans being better off when they were enslaved is something with which a lot of modern conservatives and Republicans privately agree. This article makes a compelling case along those lines:

http://news.yahoo.com/republicans-racist-t-094500710--politics.html

The Bundy case would be a non-issue if the BLM had not stormed onto his farm like a swat team.

The 2nd Amendment haters note that there's no reason for a average american to hold a military style "assault weapon"? Actually there is, if the country is ever invaded it ensures that the militia will have basic military grade arms according to the Supreme Court. Yet those same individuals are ok with the Bureau of Land Management owning those same weapons. Wait... What? Why does the BLM need to have them but a person like Bundy has no reason?

What reason is there to storm someone's farm to get a bill paid? Is that how the government settles debts now? So if I don't pay my school taxes it's ok for a special operations team from the Public Schools to invade my home?

There were avenues the BLM could have taken to get their money, there is already a court case on the Bundy issue (which he was losing) that would have gotten the BLM their money. This would not be a story had they used those other avenues.

No American citizen should have to worry about a BLM strike team coming onto their property at any point. PERIOD. A BLM strike team shouldn't even exist.

MikeyA

The Bundy case would be a non-issue if Cliven had been paying his $1.39 per cow to graze, like the other ranchers had to do.

"There were avenues the BLM could have taken to get their money, there is already a court case on the Bundy issue (which he was losing) that would have gotten the BLM their money. This would not be a story had they used those other avenues."

They had been dealing with Bundy for years. Bundy's the kind of idiot that believes the government should not even be recognized. What makes you think a court order would have any effect on him?

This has been going on for over 20 years and these people have sent bombs into offices and shot up the signs and made threats. What's the government supposed to do, cave in and let them run wild? Cancel the debt? Just walk in unprotected and start rounding up cows? He's been through court and lost, and it's clear that he was not going to come quietly if they came for him. That means it's SWAT time.

Too bad they didn't catch Kaczinski earlier, before he finished reading all his Al Gore books.

Just so we're clear you support a highly armed militaristic show of force when upholding civil fines.

So when you don't pay your fine from the red light camera you're ok with TPD surrounding your house and smoking you out with a cs grenade.

You're good with that right because consistency.

MikeyA

People like Bundy do more to hurt our 2nd Amendment rights than any liberal. As an ignorant racist, anti- government, law breaker, he puts gun owners in a bad light. The 2nd Amendment talks about a well regulated militia, not a bunch of idiot law breaking bigots.

Why did the BLM need guns with Bundy? They did their homework and knew what they were up against.

You must have been watching the wrong channel. The ones with the gunships, SAWS, etc. were the State police. And the US Supreme court has ruled the Second Amendment is an INDIVIDUAL right. I don't know if you're a gun owner or not, but "gun owners" that talk like you worry me more than a 67 year old man does.

Yeah and you know why they came in like that? Because Bundy and his people have a clear track record of domestic terrorism and threats against the BLM and Forest Service.

Bundy's attitude was clearly "fuck the Feds, I ain't paying 'em and if they come for me I'll give 'em a fight". You want to tell me that the BLM's supposed to send in Officer Friendly to politely arrest Bundy and confiscate his herds in that situation? Riiiiight, That'd be successful.

Where do you get this happy horseshit about "domestic terrorism"? Other than from Dingy Harry?

Read the next comment down by me, dumbass. The one that cites where offices have had bombs sent to them.

Now you'll say that sending a BLM office a bomb is not domestic terrorism.

Bundy supporters were aiming their weapons at government agents and strategizing about using their women and children as human shields during the stand off, such actions are irresponsible. As a responsible gun owner, I hate to see idiots doing stupid things with their guns.

The BLM arrested his son and confiscated his cattle. If they did their homework and needed those guns where was the shoot out?

MikeyA

Come on, Mikeya. You're smart enough to answer that question yourself.
Just because BLM was ready to defend themselves from Bundy's idiots doesn't mean there had to be a shoot out.

I'm smart? I thought I was hypocritical traitor scum.

If anyone is playing dumb here it's you PMW. You don't need a swat team to collect a fine.

The BLM's actions caused this controversy. Had they not taken the provocative actions they'd did I'd fully support you but they were wrong. Just because Bundy is wrong for not paying his fines doesn't justify their actions. Their actions are a threat to the US population. The government should live in fear of it's people, it's people should not live in fear of the government.

MikeyA

Hey Mikey, you fucking dumbass traitor, if you want provocative actions, why not look up all the bombings and bombs mailed in and threats made by Bundy and his cohorts to the BLM and Forest Service in the 20 years prior to now? Oh wait, you want to blame your employer, the U.S. Government, for being provocative? How about you get your fucking ass out of the fucking service, you fucking hypocritical fucking government teat-sucker, and find a REAL job in the private sector, instead of being a hypocritical traitor serving the government you find all sorts of time to demean and slander while being paid by them?

Wow

Wow,

you really are a pansy aren't you.

MikeyA

I see. You continue to refuse to acknowledge the domestic terrorism that was going on out there, the bombings, the threats, shooting up the signs that were posted, 20 years of history, repeated judgements against Bundy, etc. etc. and want to whine solely that the poor man is being persecuted and the big bad government (THAT EMPLOYS YOU) is a big pile of jackbooted meanie thugs that should have simply sent in Officer Friendly to ask nicely for Mr. Bundy to get his walking steaks off Government property and to pay his fine, as if that had worked any of the previous 20 years they tried doing it.

If you disapprove of the government so much, why do you keep working for them, you traitor? Trying to stay on as long as you can to continue with your sedition?

The guy's cows needed to be rounded up off Government property and the government is in its rights to take the damn cows away from him for more than one reason (fines owed being one and lack of care being another, the same way the dog warden can take your dog that's running loose that you're not penning up). Bundy's made threats and noise that he and the other ranchers would fight back, in that situation do you come in "like normal" or do you make sure that you are in bulletproof gear and sufficient numbers to keep yourself safe from the whacko nutjobs that have a history of bombing things and threats?

Sorry dude but if I'm dealing with domestic terrorist whackos who deny the existence of the Federal government, with a history of threats and bombings and disregarding the authority of the government, I'm gonna make damn sure that I'm going in geared up and with sufficient backup vs. these assholes. But you're the great military strategist, so I guess you'd just send a couple of guys armed with billy clubs and pepper spray to ask Bundy to very nicely pay his bill, and four more guys on horses armed with cattle prods and lassos to round up the cattle. You know, so the domestic terrorist whackos would feel totally comfortable that they outnumbered and outgunned Officer Friendly and Company and thereby find the balls to fire on them or take them hostage or whatever. Clearly also all the foreign policy of those Republicans you vote for is wrong as well, as we shouldn't have mutual assured destruction and a super strong military as deterrents, we should just send anyone we have a problem with a strongly worded letter (like we did to Bundy for 20 years) and they'll be so happy to do whatever we say.

"You don't need a swat team to collect a fine."

So, is the solution to bring in a bunch dumbass militia idiots to prove that the Feds needed the fire power? Or, would it have been better to have not been threatening, that way showing the BLM to have been unjustified in bringing their military gear. Dumb is as dumb does.

How old are you? Ten?

According to a single idiot wearing a baseball cap----you really took the bait on that one, hook, line and sinker! How much longer are you going to paste that asinine video?

Oh bullshit. Hey everyone, look at Mikey defend DOMESTIC TERRORISTS!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/04/15/everything-you...

April 1995: The fight between the Bureau of Land Management and the ranchers who want to use the federal land without fees or oversight is growing more tense, according to a story published in USA Today.

Thursday evening, a small bomb went off in the U.S. Forest Service office in Carson City, Nev.

Though no one has taken responsibility -- and no one was injured -- it has sent chills through government agencies involved in Western land management.

"If it was sent as a message," says Forest Service spokeswoman Erin O'Connor, "we got it."

And

March 18, 1996: The federal government, which owns 87 percent of the land in Nevada, is still worried about potential violence if they try to remove illegally grazing cattle from protected land. Two more pipebombs had exploded in Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management offices in the past two years.

AND

April 2012: The BLM plans to round up Bundy's cattle. After several threats, these plans are abandoned.

You want to play off that the Feds are big mean nasty jackbooted stormtrooper thugs? THAT DON'T FUCKING FLY, SOLDIER, NOT WHEN THESE PEOPLE HAVE BEEN DOMESTIC TERRORISTS! Your hypocritical Republican ass would have NO PROBLEM WHATSOEVER sending in all the SWAT teams and even calling in the National Guard if this shit was happening from some sort of LLLLLliberal commie pinko group like #Occupiers, but when there's been 20 years of disregarding the law, making threats against Forest Service and BLM employees, freaking bombings, etc. and the BLM comes in with all the neat toys handed to them by the DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY BY WAY OF ONE GEORGE DUBYA BUSH (who you voted for) AND HIS PATRIOT ACT (that you supported unthinkingly), it's suddenly OH MY GOD FEDERAL GESTAPO TACTICS!! QUICK EVERYONE GRAB YOUR GUNS AND LINE UP THE WOMEN IN FRONT SO WE CAN DEFEND OURSELVES FROM THE MEAN FEDS!!!

Eff you, Mikey, and your double standard. Why don't you get off the Internet and go back to dreaming of shooting some college kids protesting on campus somewhere?

This guy owes the government a million bucks for feeding his walking steaks on government property, and when the government tries to collect on the debt, you back the WELFARE QUEEN MOOCHER who is SUCKING THE GOVERNMENT TEAT and demand that the Federal government IGNORE THE DEBT... all of which are COMPLETELY OPPOSITE to your views and the views of the GOP that you vote for. You know what that makes you, Mikey? A RINO! RIIIIIIIINNNNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOO!!! A LIBERAL BY ANY OTHER NAME!!! You support government debt and people who mooch off the government!!! You are also being a TRAITOR TO THE UNITED STATES by DEFENDING A MAN WHO REFUSES TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FOR WHICH YOU WORK AND WHOSE OATH YOU TOOK.

I'd call hypocritical traitors like you scum, but I don't want to have to defend myself in court from all the scum that would be offended by the comparison.

Collecting on the debt needs to be appropriate and measured. The actions by the BLM were neither.

Collection agents dressed in suits send a totally different message than those dressed in body armor with military grade weapons at the ready.

So I'm a hypocritical traitor scum eh? Congress seems to think differently.

MikeyA

You swore an oath to defend and uphold the Constitution which created the Federal Government that Bundy denies the existence of. You support Bundy and his position. Therefore you have forsworn your oath and are a traitor, traitor.

These people have a long history of sending out bombs and making threats. You want to tell me again how sending in Officer Friendly is a wise move when dealing with domestic terrorists? Why is it okay in your world to send in police out in riot gear and APCs to break up a pile of dumbass kids setting couches on fire after their team wins/loses some sporting event, but Officer Friendly should be deployed into an area where bombings and threats have been made against the authorities?

Come on, traitor, Explain to us how you, as a Republican voter, who supported George Dubya Bush and the PATRIOT Act and all that Homeland Security spending that gave all of the police forces including the Forest Service and BLM all these shiny new toys in the name of "Homeland Security", now have a problem with them being used when confronting a group of armed people who have previously made threats to and bombed the offices of said agencies. You're the one who repeatedly voted for and empowered these agencies with all the military gear they have. You're the one who called anyone who questioned the need for this "terrorist-loving America-haters who want the terrorists to win" and shit like that. Does that magically change when some faux-patriot (can't call him a true patriot as he doesn't recognize the USA and its authority) mooches off the government and refuses to pay his bill? Why are you being a terrorist-loving America-hating traitor, Mikey?

My oath is to the system and the rights it protects.

The BLM circumvented the system and denied Bundy his rights. Their actions were too extensive and against the bill of rights, that is why they backed down.

"You're the one who repeatedly voted for and empowered these agencies with all the military gear they have. You're the one who called anyone who questioned the need for this "terrorist-loving America-haters who want the terrorists to win" and shit like that."

I have never supported arming a BLM employee with any weapon larger than that they might need to defend themselves against a wild animal they could come in contact with in their duties. Additionally, it is not the job of the BLM or the FBI to collect fines. There are government entities who have that job and they should be the ones to do it appropriately.

" Why is it okay in your world to send in police out in riot gear and APCs to break up a pile of dumbass kids setting couches on fire after their team wins/loses some sporting event, but Officer Friendly should be deployed into an area where bombings and threats have been made against the authorities?" Fist the answer is in your quote. There is a difference between a violent action and a violent threat. Secondly you have not shown where Bundy made a violent threat prior to the raid or had any indication of following up on one if he had.

"who supported George Dubya Bush and the PATRIOT Act and all that Homeland Security spending that gave all of the police forces including the Forest Service and BLM all these shiny new toys in the name of "Homeland Security", now have a problem with them being used when confronting a group of armed people who have previously made threats to and bombed the offices of said agencies." The BLM was not given military grade arms under the Patriot Act, nor do they serve any security function. In case you're wondering I'm equally against giving military grade weapons to the dept of education nor do I think they should enforce detention with SWAT teams. Glad we got that cleared up.

"Does that magically change when some faux-patriot (can't call him a true patriot as he doesn't recognize the USA and its authority) mooches off the government and refuses to pay his bill?" No it doesn't change. I don't agree with Bundy. I even think he is flat out wrong and does owe the government. But there is a court system exercising due process and Bundy was working within that system. It is not the job of the BLM or the FBI to collect fines by gunpoint. He should be extended the rights that everyone else enjoys regardless of his political beliefs. It's sad you disagree with that and the constitution.

MikeyA

Bundy was NOT working within the court system. Read the fucking timeline, you fucking traitorous ignoramus.

1998: A federal judge issues a permanent injunction against Bundy, ordering him to remove his cattle from the federal lands. He lost an appeal to the San Francisco 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. He represented himself.

THAT WAS 1998.

April 2012: The BLM plans to round up Bundy's cattle. After several threats, these plans are abandoned

August 2013: A court order says Bundy has 45 days to remove his cattle from federal land.October 2013: A federal district judge court tells Bundy not to “physically interfere with any seizure or impoundment operation.”

March 15, 2014: After nearly 20 years, the Bureau of Land Management sends Bundy a letter informing him that they plan to impound his "trespass cattle," which have been roaming on 90 miles of federal land. BLM averages four livestock impoundments a year, usually involving a few dozen animals.

NOW, YOU DELIBERATELY DENSE TRAITOR, TELL ME HOW BUNDY WAS WORKING WITHIN THE COURT SYSTEM, HAVING HAD A PERMANENT INJUNCTION AGAINST HIM SINCE 1998 AND HAVING LOST AT THE NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.

Let's see how nicely Bundy and family have played along, shall we?

April 6, 2014: Cliven Bundy's 37-year-old son is arrested for "refusing to disperse" and resisting arrest. He was released the following day. His face is covered with scratches from fighting the feds.

April 9, 2014: Two of Bundy's family members are injured in a confrontation with federal officials. One of them was Bundy's son, tasered after he kicked a police dog.

Last time I checked, assaulting a police animal was just like assaulting a police officer.
Resisting arrest and assaulting police officers? YEAH THAT'S BODY ARMOR AND SWAT TIME, NOT OFFICER FRIENDLY TIME.

I'll concede you are right.

Losing an appeal, your son arrested for refusing to disperse, and kicking a police dog are all grounds for a SWAT invasion with military weapons to collect on a fine.

With all that in perspective I'm glad I got my taxes in on time.

With all that it's no wonder we don't have tanks driving down Collingwood in Toledo. It seems justified since instances of kicking resisting arrest, assault, and failure to pay fines result in SWAT teams.

I'm going to start a petition today. A "TAKE BACK COLLINGWOOD" petition. We are going to get the BLM to bring in up-armored HMMWV's to collect on the parking tickets. It's justified since everything that occurred on Bundy's ranch has been a systemic problem on Collingwood Blvd for 30 plus years.

MikeyA

That your an traitorous ignoramus, and a dumb conservative hick like the rest of us who misspell and don't agree with Ac's views. If we can't (spell write) for the grammar Nazi, then we our ignorant and traitorous... Hmmmm..

"DTOM" {1776} " We The People" {1791}

Once again you ignore the history of threats and bombings over the past 20 years by ranchers in the area.

If you and all the people in your neighborhood mailed pipe bombs into the IRS and phoned up the offices with threats and threatened agents, I'd expect the IRS to come knocking with some backup.

This clown has refused to pay his bill for 20 years and then rallies up the local nutjobs to come out for him with a show of arms. Yeah I'd expect the Feds to come knocking with APCs.

Geez, I told you that you were correct and I backed up your position. I'm with you now. Like you I now support gestapo tactics for fine collections. In fact, we should now start the discussion if we should arm the IRS and stop those teabaggers and Faux News!

MikeyA

Stop being an asshole, you traitor.

How am I an asshole? You're the one namecalling here.

MikeyA

I know you are but what am I? Doesn't the military have anything productive for you to do Capt. Arthur?

Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.

Actually no, I'm in training for a deployment. Where I will make 3x my salary!

MikeyA

Μολὼν Λαβέ - Molon labe
delta tau omicron mu- DTOM
Along with millions of others...

OATH KEEPERS: ORDERS WE WILL NOT OBEY

1. We will NOT obey orders to disarm the American people.

2. We will NOT obey orders to conduct warrantless searches of the American people

3. We will NOT obey orders to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to military tribunal.

4. We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a “state of emergency” on a state.

5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty.

6. We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.

7. We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.

8. We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to “keep the peace” or to “maintain control."

9. We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies.

10.We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.

http://oathkeepers.org/oath/about/

"DTOM" {1776} " We The People" {1791}

Why would anyone line women and children up to hide behind? One shot from a flamethrower and they would be vaporized, just like at Waco.

"Why would anyone line women and children up to hide behind? One shot from a flamethrower and they would be vaporized, just like at Waco."

They are terrorist! Because, like terrorists, they don't care about human life. They are more interested in their cause. Their plan was to make martyrs of their women and children, just like terrorists. Are you getting any of this?

The G isn't getting anything except his legs wet, as he's looking at the pyramids as he stands in Denial.

So, you're saying people wanted to see their mothers, grandmothers, sons and daughters get incinerated to make MARTYRS out of them? If this situation happened in some hell hole in another part of the world, I MIGHT believe it, maybe-maybe not. People who do this are NOT terrorists, they're what I call chickenshits.

They're both. Nothing says a chickenshit can't be a terrorist too. I considered Bin Laden to be a chickenshit, and he was a terrorist.
Here's the video:

The G is strangely silent. Hmmm. Guess he can't deny the Fox News reality that these chickenshit terrorists were so chickenshit as to line up the womenfolk as human shields.

This "article" was written by the same NYT guy who covered the Trayvon Martin case and said that the system failed Martin--pleazzzzzzzzze!

You have such patience.

I see Farmergal is still going out to the barn and taking in a big breath and calling it fresh air.

you are a silly boy!

Once again purnhrt you have made a quality post that says so much.

Thank you for your contributions. I don't know what we would ever do without posts like this.

MikeyA

This last one was a total of five words.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.