Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch

[willseeker]

What are you actually trying to say Will - that I do not respect an individuals rights to property - especially property where there is a clean and clear title to it. Where do you plan to stand Will when the time comes if it ever does - at home.

I appologize for the attack.
We have been through a lot of trauma in the last few years. Financial, emotional, physical. We lost our home to foreclosure and had the honor of having a very small group that stayed with us through the fight.
I'm just a bit cynical when it comes to others leaving their comfort zone and actually taking a physical and present stand for anothers cause.

 

[JRuby]

I am sorry to hear of these problems - we are having our own issues due to a failed business. We all have problems - and frankly I am not happy with how things are going myself, I am not smart enough to know the many of the answers except to try and do what is right. There are many principles that I have learned - one is standing up for those things when they happen. If I am going to commit to something I have to believe that it is the right thing t do. Protection of personal property is very important to me.

 

[Oregonhunter5]

This had nothing to do with Bundy being right or wrong ya all! It is about people pissed off about the way things are these days. And this could be the beginning of something very big. Even if Bundy is wrong legally. But laws are meant to be broken and changed. If you love laws, grab a gun and arm yourself boy. Cause me and mine will be on the other side of the line facing you...

 

[nwbobber]

You're probably right here. I was hoping for a better reason for a revolution, though.

 

[willseeker]

You're probably right here. I was hoping for a better reason for a revolution, though.

Nobody expects the spanish inquisition.
I also fantasize about what a ritcheous begining might look like but I don't get to pick the scenario.
If we can all look past the minutia, the bigger picture tells the story…and it seems after 12 pages of this thread we are all starting to agree on some points.

 

[ZigZagZeke]

Happening now: "They will argue the so-called Federal legality of the raid itself, and paint Bundy as a 'freeloader' who refuses to pay taxes and who is living off the American people. They will do everything in their power to destroy the image of the victory and soil the name of the Bundy family.

What they don't seem to understand, though, is that the liberty movement does not care what the Federal government deems "legal" or "illegal." Our only interest is what is Constitutional and what is moral."

http://personalliberty.com/liberty-movement-rising/

 

[ZigZagZeke]

From this site:
http://thenewsdoctors.com/harry-reid-is-the-real-domestic-terrorist/

"The federal district court opinion in the case of U.S. v. Bundy. This is the legal authority on which the rightfulness of the BLM's actions hinge. Nowhere in the court's order does the judge so much as mention taxes or fees. Thus, the issue of Bundy's alleged grazing fee delinquency has never been adjudicated, and the allegations to the contrary are just so much armchair lawyering by mainstream media cue card readers, which I've suspected all along. What this means is that to the extent the BLM has been rationalizing its behavior on the basis of grazing fees, it has unequivocally deprived Bundy of due process. Here's the order, which runs just 3 pages, giving the BLM the right to impound Bundy's cattle without conveying the rights needed to sell the cattle, i.e. title: U.S. v. Cliven Bundy.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10667167307580781808&hl=en&as_sdt=6,34

But the feds went a lot farther than that by attempting to sell the cattle in Utah. That's an act of dominion that requires a title to the cattle, which the ruling unequivocally does NOT grant the feds. This means that feds are guilty of attempted grand larceny (farm animals are a particular no-no) when it entered into a sales contract.

Furthermore, my colleague also pointed out that the court ruling is silent on the matter of the grazing fees: "Bundy may owe them, but the Feds have not obtained any judicial ruling that would entitle them to a lien on the cattle. By attempting to do exactly that, sell the cattle, the Feds deprived Bundy of due process. The media's silence on this point is as stunning as it is telling."

 

[jjackffrost]

What dos the truth have to do with this, Bundy have something the feds wanted and would not sell it so they tried to take it. Here in Oregon they just use imminent domain and take it, if you do not sell it to them. all nice and legal like. If you do not have 100 of thousands of dollars to fight it for years you do not have the rights to that land that's just the way it is. we fixed it once with Measure 37 but the state used are tax dollars to run campain
Of scare tactics to kill it with measure 42 so back to the same old.

The Institute for Justice — the country's only nonprofit, public-interest law firm with a libertarian philosophy — spends a good deal of time protecting individuals and small businesses from greedy corporations and their partners in crime: bureaucrats armed with eminent domain. In 2003, it released a report on the use of "governmental condemnation" (another name for eminent domain) for private gain. No central data collection for this trend exists, and only one state (Connecticut) keeps statistics on it. Using court records, media accounts, and information from involved parties, the Institute found over 10,000 such abuses in 41 states from 1998 through 2002. Of these, the legal process had been initiated against 3,722 properties, and condemnation had been threatened against 6,560 properties. (Remember, this is condemnation solely for the benefit of private parties, not for so-called legitimate reasons of "public use.")

 

[Oregonhunter5]

If cattle and a country redneck weren't involved, the right and the left folks would be joining together to fight this.
And this is what exactly needs to happen, to stop the people like Grandma Harry.
Also. If Harry didn't have the support if the casino unions, he would of been gone years ago.

 

[fredball]

Good Old Liberal Debate Tactics
GUIDE TO LIBERAL DEBATE TACTICS
There is an old joke about prisoners in a penitentiary who have heard each other's jokes so many times, they assigned numbers to them and shout those out, rather than retelling the joke. This Guide is intended for Battalion S2 Commenters to use in the same manner.

They are not presented in any particular order.

1. SHOW UP WITH YOUR TALKING POINTS. Make sure you have something that you feel will show your opponents in a negative light, and make that the subject of the discussion.

2. DEMONIZE YOUR OPPONENT. Attempt to cover them with shame, the same way you would a 4 year old that touches his pee-pee.

3. IF YOU SEE SOMEONE DOING #2 ABOVE, SUPPORT HIM IMMEDIATELY.

4. ACCUSE YOU OPPONENT OF SAYING SOMETHING HE DIDN'T. Attempt to define his statements in a negative light. Interpret them this way and state it as fact that he did actually say it. NEVER ask him…always TELL him what his meaning was.

5. CLAIM THAT IT IS "OLD NEWS" AND NOT WORTHY OF DISCUSSION. This applies especially when the discussion turns to the misdeeds of Democrat Party Leadership.

6. QUOTE AN UNSOURCED NEW ARTICLE. Always quote the article selectively, or describe it in a general manner.

7. IF ASKED DIRECT QUESTIONS ABOUT THE NEWS YOU HAVE PROVIDED, RESPOND INDIRECTLY. Never actually answer the specific of the question.

8. IF ASKED TO SOURCE YOUR NEWS ARTICLE, IGNORE THE QUESTION.

9. ACCUSE YOUR OPPONENT OF A MENTAL DEFECT OR LACK OF INTELLIGENCE. Personal attacks of this sort are especially useful as the target will almost always try to defend himself, thus changing the subject.

10. IF THE PARTY LEADERSHIP IS ATTACKED, ATTEMPT TO TURN THE TABLES BY INFERRING THAT SOMEONE IN YOUR OPPONENTS PARTY IS JUST AS BAD.

11. ACCUSE YOUR OPPONENT OF NOT ANSWERING YOUR QUESTIONS. Try to do this before he has an opportunity to. Try to infer that it you have given him multiple opportunities to do so. Do it even if the question has been answered. If he misses the question and asks you to repeat it DO NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES REPEAT THE QUESTION FOR HIS BENEFIT).

12. RESORT TO INSULTS. Try to question you opponent's masculinity, his resolve, ANYTHING, but try to diminish and demean him. (This is know as the "LBJ Rule" codified by him thus: "Accuse your opponent of being a pig fornicator, then make him deny it.) REMEMBER, IF YOU HAVE TO RESORT TO THIS TACTIC, IT MEANS YOUR OPPONENT IS WINNING!

13. ACCUSE YOUR OPPONENT OF BEING UNINFORMED. This works especially well when you are asked to provide your sources. It is especially effective if you work in a reference to someone you have already demonized. Rush Limbaugh is currently the Demon of Choice.

14. SPEAK CRYPTICALLY. Try to make it difficult for people to divine your meaning

15. CHANGE THE SUBJECT. Try to get it back to your original talking points (see #1 above)

16. APPEAR TO AGREE. You will need to do this in order to achieve #15.

17. CLAIM YOUR OPPONENT IS BEING UNREASONABLE OR WON'T LISTEN TO REASON, AND LEAVE IN A HUFF.

18. BAIT YOUR OPPONENT. Needle him, tease him, call him names until he makes an inappropriate post, then scream bloody murder to the Moderator.

19. DENY THE EVIDENCE EXISTS. Ask for evidence of wrongdoing by those you support. When that evidence is presented, continue denying that it exists.

 

[Riot]

How about ignore any sources that came from Fox, Alex Jones, Drudge, Heritage while quoting Huffington, New York Times and MSNBC

 

[cookie]

Sure you will…not!

I certainly would go help, unless it is on the day the X factor in on TV or a sports game and I can't miss Dr. Phil.

 

[cookie]

Good Old Liberal Debate Tactic

19. DENY THE EVIDENCE EXISTS. Ask for evidence of wrongdoing by those you support. When that evidence is presented, continue denying that it exists.

On all of the Gun websites there are always posts sounding intellectual that there is no evidence that Obama is anti gun.

 

[gaijinsamurai]

http://www.8newsnow.com/story/25301551/bundys-ancestral-rights-come-under-scrutiny

 

[Doc In UPlace]

DEBATE TACTICS

Sounds like the nightly script/SOP for O'Reilly too. They all do it, and the game is to divide us and keep us squabbling. Works like a charm.

 

[erudne]

Oath Keepers Speak at the Bundy Ranch!

Published on Apr 20, 2014
Stewart Rhodes (founder of Oathkeepers), Sheriff Brad Rogers (CSPOA), Michele Fiore (Nevada Assemblywoman), and others speak at the Bundy Ranch! Fiore was the only NV Offiical to stand against the BLM Gunmen during the show-down

 

[Brutus57]

Kill 'em, ALLL, let God sort'em out?


Brutus Out

 

[Caveman Jim]

I read something about Liberals having a 30 day concert down there to pester Bundy, on the phone so cannot give a link sorry...

Time to play cowboys & Liberals next....

 

[PiratePast40]

Why do these people discredit themselves? We see it over and over again. Just when you've attained support, the guy feels it's necessary to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory and discredit his supporters as well.
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/gop-scrambles-condemn-ranchers-remarks-race-n88556

 

[Jamie6.5]

When all else fails, paint him as a racist.
The NYT article NBC quotes is clearly a smear job that is pro admin, and anti Bundy.
They've got nothing else, what do they have to lose?
Mr Nagourney notes at the end of his NYT article that Lynnette Curtis contributed the reporting from Bunkerville, which is where Bundy supposedly made the racist statement.
Curtis is a reporter/commentator on "social issues" that writes for various publications in the LV area.
If you read some of her stuff, she's definitely got a progressive-liberal bent.
Almost as much of a prog-lib bent as Mr Nagourney.

I have my doubts as to whether the quote is even accurate, but we'll see.