Militias coming to the aid of Cliven Bundy
- Thread starter Digga38
- Start date
the next guy
Superstar
These the same dudes to slam any IR marriage, but they in love with a Cliven Bundy who would shoot them dead in a instant. I wonder what you happen if a black man decided he was NOT paying any taxes...Dudes in here gushing and cheer leading this shyt.
Unreal.
Do you have an unbiased link that proves Bundy would execute a black person Zimmerman style?
the next guy
Superstar
Why do you people support this guy again?
Last edited:
That's besides the point. If the BLM and the federal government want to keep the ranchers on the farm and want to lower fees, restrictions, regulations, etc. in order to keep the farmers then that's a whole other discussion.
So is Cliven Bundy, so you're suggestion that if American citizens don't want to abide by federal government laws and actions then they should leave...kinda like what I suggested Bundy could/should do earlier in this thread, right?
That can be a solution but I think waiving the part of the fee should only be an option based on Bundy's financial situation. I'm presuming he's pretty loaded seeing how he has enough cattle to graze on 170,000+ acres of land so I don't know if he deserves the waivor but if it's used as a purpose to negotiate him for breaking the law I see that as pretty fair.
Don't know why this wasn't something Bundy tried to attempt earlier? Like 20 years earlier?
If you want to argue about the justification and legitimacy of the law then you can't just argue it from Bundy's favor though. Obviously there are several issues with the land that many sides are addressing.
No. That's this discussion. You can't separate application of the law from the context in which it is applied.
Uh, no. I was trying to point out, tongue-in-cheek, how ridiculously reductive the position of "if you don't like it, leave" is.
I used the war protesters as a way of showing how hypocritical it was for the left to be so tax-friendly all of a sudden, when not paying taxes has been a tried-and-true tactic. Then you drew a distinction between Bundy and the protesters in that Bundy could just "leave." My response was meant to underscore that Bundy could no more leave than those protesters could.
Bundy? Wealthy? A common misconception. Ranchers are essentially "house rich." He may have a lot of land and a lot of cattle, but the margin on selling cattle is low. His real wealth is the land, which is probably worth millions on the fair market. That's how ranchers stay afloat in bad years. They take a loan out against the value of the land, and then repay the loan when times are okay. The rub is that Bundy doesn't care if he never recognizes a gain on the land. He just wants to live on it. And the government will absolutely buttfukk him on the price.
Regarding the question of why Bundy didn't negotiate, I imagine Bundy wanted to go through the courts first. But that didn't work out because the letter of the law is against him.
That's fine. But if you acknowledge that, then you're also acknowledging that you can't just argue legality. Which is what you've been doing up to this point.[/QUOTE]
I'm just now coming around to this thread, but I swear, this type of shyt the tea party types just DREAM about.... the idea of "fighting tyranny". Let somebody else do it and it's like "fukk you, the law is the law 
" let it happen to them and they get all giddy, suffering delusions of granduer and shyt. "oh my god look at me 
I'm such a PATRIOT I'm just like the founding fathers 
"
" let it happen to them and they get all giddy, suffering delusions of granduer and shyt. "oh my god look at me I'm such a PATRIOT I'm just like the founding fathers " 
godkiller
"We are the Fury"
My statement is valid. Feds kill people all the time, and these cacs have no problem with the people the Feds kill. I guess it's different this time. But why?
godkiller
"We are the Fury"
The Feds should have opened fire and destroyed all resistance. Under what authority do these gun nut right wingers claim the right to oppose the law of the land? I know that if a police officer asks me to cooperate, I have no choice but to do so. The cop might kill me otherwise. Yet stunningly, the same law enforcement that wantonly murders black men throughout the country can't muster the wherewithal to put down rebels dressed for war. What's the reason for the disparate treatment?
Last edited:
godkiller
"We are the Fury"
During the Katrina crisis, it was reported that white militia gangs went on killing sprees.
While information about Bundy's racial proclivities aren't available, research on white militia members and their affiliates concludes high anti-black sentiment is rife within the movement. These people are basically far right, gun toting conservative extremists. Research on white gun owners alone--without even factoring in militia membership and political ideology--indicate that they are more likely to be racist.
Tommy Knocks
retired
the same could be said in reverse tho. during OWS people were wanting a revolt. Its strange that people would take the govt side as if they are the good guys.I'm just now coming around to this thread, but I swear, this type of shyt the tea party types just DREAM about.... the idea of "fighting tyranny". Let somebody else do it and it's like "fukk you, the law is the law
the law is the law my ass, if the law is against the people, it should be opposed. many times we forget that the govt works for the people, not the other way around.
godkiller
"We are the Fury"
You nor Bundy have the moral authority to decide which laws are legitimate and which are not. You cannot justify breaking laws merely because you do not like and disavow them. That's like saying I can steal because I don't think laws against stealing are best. The elected government and courts decide laws, and glean their legitimacy from democracy. You, OWS and the Tea Party have no democratic legitimacy. If the Feds can kill any urban man for refusing to remove his hands from his pockets, the Feds should kill those who brandish sub machine guns and aim them at federal officers.
Tommy Knocks
retired
their are laws which are unjust. for example probation for cocaine (rich people drug), but 10 years for crack (poor people drug). Would you be opposed to a protest to change said law?
godkiller
"We are the Fury"
Your reckoning of whether a law is unjust or not holds no legislative standing in a democratic society. I might believe laws against stealing are unjust and that people should live by whatever means they can, but my personal beliefs hold no standing either. The reason we have democracy, government and the courts is to standardize and codify moral codes. If these institutional structures didn't exist, there would be chaos. By your logic anyone is justified in breaking any law merely because they disagree with it. You are a fukking moron.