What's new

Bundy. why no interest?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Ms Tree

Veteran
Joined
Jul 13, 2010
Messages
9,731
Reaction score
9,009
I figured at lest one of you guys would have brought it up. It's got all the good stuff. Good olé boy grazing his heard. The BLM comes in and takes his land. The then come in with snipers and armored vehicles to confiscate his heard. Militia men come in to defend the poor cow boy from the evil Fed. Hanity has told you guys that Bundy is as innocent as the driven snow. Beck (who'd of thought he would be the voice of sanity) said Bundy is a free loader. Then Bundy screws the pooch even worse by going on TV with his view on the history of blacks in the US.

But not a peep from any of the folks on the right. What gives?
 
I have not kept up with that item enough to know the details other than a few headlines here and there.  
 
However,  historically speaking every time things get too far off center no matter what type of government you are talking about you start to see conflicts like this arise.   More specifically anytime you have an oppressive or perceived oppressive government, armed "revolt" or "insurgance" or any other name various things are called is prone to come up.
 
With all the "scandals" in the last few years,   NSA, IRS, Benghazi, Snowden, executive orders, backroom deals, monthly rewrites of congressionally passed laws with no congressional review, fast and furious, immigration, targeting of reporters and selective killing of news stories by high placed political figures, I am not at all surprised to see items like the above start to appear.
 
Normally it starts with the select few "whack jobs",  and if the perceived or real govt. oppression still continues unabated, historically it spreads and ceases to be fringe or whackjobs.   
 
History has many such events,  The revolt of the colonies, the overthrow of the czars, the rise of the Nazi party, the arab spring.    Once a fuse is lit it does not take much to fan the flames.
 
Our founders saw fit to create the governing body in such a fashion as to provide checks and balances, and in reading their writings of the period they were very aware of what can happen when any one group holds too much power or attempts to subvert the system.  
 
It is a dynamic time in our countries history.  I see us at a crossroads right now that can tip either way,  back into a stable checks and balances system or equally possible is the fall into chaos and protracted civil unrest/war.
 
Political leaders are only political leaders if the people see fit to follow them.  In a country such as ours founded and grown under the concepts of freedom, and a persons right to choose their path in life, we were able to go from a set of 13 backwoods territories into a world superpower.    However those same qualities also limit how much our population will suffer from unethical politicians, and power mongers.      There are examples in both governing parties of what is wrong with the country at present.    the fact that our current president has several sound bites out there saying things like "I am the president, I can do whatever I want" only serves to throw a can of gas on the already flickering flame of unrest.  
 
Ancient curse, "May you live in interesting times"   I think the next 10 years has the potential to become one of the larger chapters in the U.S. history books of the future.  The question is if that chapter is something like 1770 to 1785, 1860 to 1865, or 1950 to 1990.     With current world events it may even be something similar to  1914 to 1918 or 1940 to 45.
 
Interesting side item.   Currently the country is seeing unprecedented growth in firearm sales and production with many companies building new facilities to keep up with consumer demand.   I grew up hunting and shooting,  but the huge surge in sales is not coming from "backwoods rednecks" like me.    Many are previously non-gun owners.
 
To be an anti gun president,  Mr. Obama's presidential term is seeing the highest increase in civilian gun ownership in the last hundred years or so.    That fact alone should make all politicians on both sides of the floor take a long hard look at what they are doing and how they are going about doing it, especially before they decide that "I am  so and so and I can do whatever I want" 
 
Ms Tree said:
I figured at lest one of you guys would have brought it up. It's got all the good stuff. Good olé boy grazing his heard. The BLM comes in and takes his land. The then come in with snipers and armored vehicles to confiscate his heard. Militia men come in to defend the poor cow boy from the evil Fed. Hanity has told you guys that Bundy is as innocent as the driven snow. Beck (who'd of thought he would be the voice of sanity) said Bundy is a free loader. Then Bundy screws the pooch even worse by going on TV with his view on the history of blacks in the US.

But not a peep from any of the folks on the right. What gives?
 
Bundy proving himself a cloddish buffoon in no way gives any "pass" for the absurdly inappropriate employment of "snipers and armored vehicles" for what was/is merely a civil issue best left to the courts. How is it even possible for people anywhere not to see a problem with said "snipers and armored vehicles"? Why not simply address the issue through court actions, place liens on assets, whatever?....Instead of having people viewed through sniper scopes? But not a peep from any of the folks on the left. What gives? I make NO defense of the man's comments or "thinking", but must truly marvel at the wholesale lack of ANY sense of proportion nowadays evidenced. Since when is it at all "rational" to place more importance on some fool's asinine comments than the unwarranted employment of far-too-easily-triggered (all that was needed was one "loose cannon") deadly force on ANY citizens? The government operation's financial cost far exceeded by many times any money owed, and the potential for lost lives wasn't at all small there...And for what? cattle grazing on some frikkin' desert?...Supposed "protection" for some tortoises?...SERIOUSLY!?  Honestly:  How does that kind of govern"mental" behavior "make sense" to ANYONE? "Right" or "Left"...?
 
Let's say, just for sake of argument, that the IRS determines you owe some back taxes. Would you then be completely comfortable being seen through sniper scopes, your family surrounded by marginally-trained-government-people with automatic weapons, and have no problem whatsoever with such a response? What's the legal and moral difference if it's owed grazing fees instead? Is it even conceivably possible that the "Left" position is that stupidly making distasteful comments in ANY way, somehow "justifies" this kind of armed response from any people who were elected to supposedly care for the citizens of this nation?
 
Keroseneuser said:
I have not kept up with that item enough to know the details other than a few headlines here and there.  
 
However,  historically speaking every time things get too far off center no matter what type of government you are talking about you start to see conflicts like this arise.   More specifically anytime you have an oppressive or perceived oppressive government, armed "revolt" or "insurgance" or any other name various things are called is prone to come up.
 
With all the "scandals" in the last few years,   NSA, IRS, Benghazi, Snowden, executive orders, backroom deals, monthly rewrites of congressionally passed laws with no congressional review, fast and furious, immigration, targeting of reporters and selective killing of news stories by high placed political figures, I am not at all surprised to see items like the above start to appear.
 
Normally it starts with the select few "whack jobs",  and if the perceived or real govt. oppression still continues unabated, historically it spreads and ceases to be fringe or whackjobs.   
 
History has many such events,  The revolt of the colonies, the overthrow of the czars, the rise of the Nazi party, the arab spring.    Once a fuse is lit it does not take much to fan the flames.
 
Our founders saw fit to create the governing body in such a fashion as to provide checks and balances, and in reading their writings of the period they were very aware of what can happen when any one group holds too much power or attempts to subvert the system.  
 
It is a dynamic time in our countries history.  I see us at a crossroads right now that can tip either way,  back into a stable checks and balances system or equally possible is the fall into chaos and protracted civil unrest/war.
 
Political leaders are only political leaders if the people see fit to follow them.  In a country such as ours founded and grown under the concepts of freedom, and a persons right to choose their path in life, we were able to go from a set of 13 backwoods territories into a world superpower.    However those same qualities also limit how much our population will suffer from unethical politicians, and power mongers.      There are examples in both governing parties of what is wrong with the country at present.    the fact that our current president has several sound bites out there saying things like "I am the president, I can do whatever I want" only serves to throw a can of gas on the already flickering flame of unrest.  
 
Ancient curse, "May you live in interesting times"   I think the next 10 years has the potential to become one of the larger chapters in the U.S. history books of the future.  The question is if that chapter is something like 1770 to 1785, 1860 to 1865, or 1950 to 1990.     With current world events it may even be something similar to  1914 to 1918 or 1940 to 45.
 
Interesting side item.   Currently the country is seeing unprecedented growth in firearm sales and production with many companies building new facilities to keep up with consumer demand.   I grew up hunting and shooting,  but the huge surge in sales is not coming from "backwoods rednecks" like me.    Many are previously non-gun owners.
 
To be an anti gun president,  Mr. Obama's presidential term is seeing the highest increase in civilian gun ownership in the last hundred years or so.    That fact alone should make all politicians on both sides of the floor take a long hard look at what they are doing and how they are going about doing it, especially before they decide that "I am  so and so and I can do whatever I want" 
 
I agree completely, and wish I could say otherwise...."May you live in interesting times" indeed, and who ever needs that?
 
So the fact that Bundy declared a range war and promised armed protest does not factor into this? Seems to me if he is promising an armed protest you best come prepared to fight. Should the BLM bring a knife to a gun fight?

If someone is threatening violence with the IRS then yes I would expect them to bring what's needed to get the job done has been fighting in court for 20 years and has lost. He has no wages to garnish since he is self employed. The BLM is trying to get his cattle off of public land which he has refused to do.
 
Ms Tree said:
. He has no wages to garnish since he is self employed.
 
He has lands, property, and an ongoing commercial enterprise, against which liens can be placed, legal action taken and funds extracted. Don't even pretend to be THAT obtuse...Unless you're not just pretending.
 
"If someone is threatening violence.." And supposedly just WHEN did that happen, save for the government doing so?...And doing more than threatening, via the slaughter of cattle and the assaults on even the likes of defenseless women by armed thugs? Can you even be trying to pretend that ANY of this government action was at ALL "reasonable"?...Seriously?
 
"If someone is threatening violence.." So exactly WHO is doing the "threatening violence" below?...The thugs with the dogs, tasers and guns...? So, you're just fine with all of this, dogs, "snipers and armored vehicles", just so long as those abused are from the "Right"? As a libertarian sort myself; I don't care if anyone's "Left", "Right" or whatever here, but this whimsical and yet massive use of potentially deadly force over a merely civil issue should be of concern to ALL citizens everywhere.
 
Niemöller is perhaps best remembered for the quotation:
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me.
 
 
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhJ6H9vlEDA
 
It's probably because they are all embarrassed that Fox News hitched their ideological wagon to a bumpkin like Bundy before fully vetting him, and now they are ashamed to be associated with such a lout and they're feeling pretty burned that now the average joe broadly associates his brand of backwoods ignorance across the entire conservative spectrum.
 
Even O'Reilly thinks so.
 
I'd just like to know why the "Bureau of Land Management", needs to be armed for WW III ?
Don't we have enough "Armed to the hilt" agencies in our bloated government already?
Couldn't the "Bureau of Land Management" call in the FBI or the likes, if they felt threatened?
 
AdAstraPerAspera said:
It's probably because they are all embarrassed that Fox News hitched their ideological wagon to a bumpkin like Bundy before fully vetting him, and now they are ashamed to be associated with such a lout and they're feeling pretty burned that now the average joe broadly associates his brand of backwoods ignorance across the entire conservative spectrum.
 
Even O'Reilly thinks so.
While Bundy turned out to be an idiot, you have to agree, the governments action, seemed just a tad excessive!
 
EastUS1 said:
He has lands, property, and an ongoing commercial enterprise, against which liens can be placed, legal action taken and funds extracted. Don't even pretend to be THAT obtuse...Unless you're not just pretending.
 
"If someone is threatening violence.." And supposedly just WHEN did that happen, save for the government doing so?...And doing more than threatening, via the slaughter of cattle and the assaults on even the likes of defenseless women by armed thugs? Can you even be trying to pretend that ANY of this government action was at ALL "reasonable"?...Seriously?
 
"If someone is threatening violence.." So exactly WHO is doing the "threatening violence" below?...The thugs with the dogs, tasers and guns...? So, you're just fine with all of this, dogs, "snipers and armored vehicles", just so long as those abused are from the "Right"? As a libertarian sort myself; I don't care if anyone's "Left", "Right" or whatever here, but this whimsical and yet massive use of potentially deadly force over a merely civil issue should be of concern to ALL citizens everywhere.
 
Niemöller is perhaps best remembered for the quotation:
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out--Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me.
 
 
 
This is not only about delinquent range fees which are a separate issue. This confrontation is about him grazing his cattle on protected land in violation of a court order instructing him not to.

As for the threat of violence, he did declare a range war and he did have numerous people on his land who were armed with rifles and other weapons. The BLM acted accordingly.

Bundy has been in violation of the law for over 20 years. I'd say the Fed has been quite patient with him. The BLM decided to remove his cattle from public lands.

Now with his latest idiocy even Hanity has bailed. The scariest part is that Beck had turned out to be the Republican voice of reason on this. Who'd of thought that would ever happen.
 
southwind said:
I'd just like to know why the "Bureau of Land Management", needs to be armed for WW III ?
Don't we have enough "Armed to the hilt" agencies in our bloated government already?
Couldn't the "Bureau of Land Management" call in the FBI or the likes, if they felt threatened?
I do not think grazing disputes fall under the FBI jurisdiction
 
Ms Tree said:
 This confrontation is about him grazing his cattle on protected land in violation of a court order instructing him not to.
 
So grazing some cattle on frikkin' desert land's nowadays worth risking the lives of many people...I see...Sigh!
 
"As for the threat of violence, he did declare a range war..." How can any individual citizen supposedly "declare" any "war"? What constitutes a "war"? Do you even know? "...and he did have numerous people on his land who were armed with rifles and other weapons." This might well astonish you, but many millions of Americans are "armed with rifles and other weapons." Does that of it's self make them a body that's threatening anyone? "The BLM acted accordingly." Indeed?...So spending who-knows-how-many-dollars for killing some cattle, while leaving fresh calves to starve unattended, smashing down at least one nest of the sacred tortoises supposedly "protected", tasing people, threatening them with dogs, surrounding an area with armed thugs with automatic weapons, armored vehicles and even snipers, qualifies as having "acted accordingly" for you?...Over some cattle grazing in violation of a court order ? You're insane...Period.
 
AdAstraPerAspera said:
It's probably because they are all embarrassed that Fox News hitched their ideological wagon to a bumpkin like Bundy before fully vetting him, and now they are ashamed to be associated with such a lout and they're feeling pretty burned that now the average joe broadly associates his brand of backwoods ignorance across the entire conservative spectrum.
 
Even O'Reilly thinks so.
Me thinks if that were the lbgtxyz protesting your interest and/or opinion might be different.
An injury to one is an injury to ALL.
 
EastUS1 said:
 
So grazing some cattle on frikkin' desert land's nowadays worth risking the lives of many people...I see...Sigh!
 
"As for the threat of violence, he did declare a range war..." How can any individual citizen supossedly "declare" any "war"? What constitutes a "war"? Do you even know? "...and he did have numerous people on his land who were armed with rifles and other weapons." This might well astonish you, but many millions of Americans are "aremed with rifles and other weapons." Does that of it's self make them a body that's threatening anyone? "The BLM acted accordingly." Indeed?...So killing some cattle, while leaving fresh calves to starve unattended, smashing down at least one nest of the sacred tortoises supposedly "protected", tasing people, threatening them with dogs, surrounding an area with heaviily armed thugs, armored vehicles and even snipers qualifies as having "acted accordingly" for you?...Over some cattle grazing? You're insane...Period.
Can't give you more than +1...
Spot on!
B) xUT
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top