PDA

View Full Version : Warning: Democrats & Phony Outrage



Pages : [1] 2 3 4

Ethereal
02-18-2016, 01:21 PM
Democrats are convulsing with paroxysms of rage in response to the Bundy incident in Oregon. But what is their collective fit of rage actually based on?

It can't be the Bundys' alleged status as "deadbeats" because the Democrat party's entire existence is based on supporting and defending legions of deadbeats who depend on government welfare.

And it can't be the illegal nature of the Bundys' occupation because the Democrat party generally favors amnesty and paths to citizenship for the millions of foreign nationals illegally occupying America.

So what is the real reason for their outrage?

Common Sense
02-18-2016, 01:25 PM
Outrage might be stretching it a bit.

Mocking these hypocrites is just entertainment.

Private Pickle
02-18-2016, 01:27 PM
Democrats are convulsing with paroxysms of rage in response to the Bundy incident in Oregon. But what is their collective fit of rage actually based on?

It can't be the Bundys' alleged status as "deadbeats" because the Democrat party's entire existence is based on supporting and defending legions of deadbeats who depend on government welfare.

And it can't be the illegal nature of the Bundys' occupation because the Democrat party generally favors amnesty and paths to citizenship for the millions of foreign nationals illegally occupying America.

So what is the real reason for their outrage?

They are American

Ethereal
02-18-2016, 01:28 PM
Outrage might be stretching it a bit.

Mocking these hypocrites is just entertainment.

Whether you describe it as outrage or mockery, my points still stand.

Ethereal
02-18-2016, 01:30 PM
They are American

True, but Democrats have no problem supporting and defending legions of American "deadbeats" all over the country. That's what their entire political party is based on, so it can't be because they're American. It has to be something else. So what is it about the Bundys that they find so objectionable? Could it be because they are white Christian gun-owners?

decedent
02-18-2016, 01:32 PM
I think the dems enjoyed seeing Y'all Qaeda "accidentally" confuse their snacks with their dildos.... in the name of liberty, of course.

Cigar
02-18-2016, 01:33 PM
Outrage might be stretching it a bit.

Mocking these hypocrites is just entertainment.

Most Dems I know are laughing their ass-off ... there's just way too much material feeding late-night TV coming from Conservatives :pointlaugh:

Cigar
02-18-2016, 01:34 PM
I think the dems enjoyed seeing Y'all Qaeda "accidentally" confuse their snacks with their dildos.... in the name of liberty, of course.

Real Tough-Guys don't takeover Empty Building :laugh:

Ethereal
02-18-2016, 01:36 PM
I think the dems enjoyed seeing Y'all Qaeda "accidentally" confuse their snacks with their dildos.... in the name of liberty, of course.

And I think Democrats are Marxists who want to throw the Constitution into the garbage and usher in a system of totalitarian government that micromanages our lives down to the minutest detail.

Ethereal
02-18-2016, 01:37 PM
Most Dems I know are laughing their ass-off ... there's just way too much material feeding late-night TV coming from Conservatives :pointlaugh:

I don't understand why Democrats are laughing when they routinely support illegal immigration and welfare dependency.

Common Sense
02-18-2016, 01:38 PM
True, but Democrats have no problem supporting and defending legions of American "deadbeats" all over the country. That's what their entire political party is based on, so it can't be because they're American. It has to be something else. So what is it about the Bundys that they find so objectionable? Could it be because they are white Christian gun-owners?

Supporting a social safety net does not equal "defending legions of American "deadbeats" all over the country". I understand you think you've come up with a brilliant point, but you haven't.

Liberals aren't mocking these idiots because they are Christians or white or gun owners. They mock them because they come off as ignorant, angry, hypocritical fools.

http://www.rawstory.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/oregon_bloodbath_160127a-800x430.jpg

decedent
02-18-2016, 01:39 PM
And I think Democrats are Marxists who want to throw the Constitution into the garbage and usher in a system of totalitarian government that micromanages our lives down to the minutest detail.

I can totally see how a bird sanctuary and the Constitution are related.

Private Pickle
02-18-2016, 01:46 PM
True, but Democrats have no problem supporting and defending legions of American "deadbeats" all over the country. That's what their entire political party is based on, so it can't be because they're American. It has to be something else. So what is it about the Bundys that they find so objectionable? Could it be because they are white Christian gun-owners?

That's my guess.

Private Pickle
02-18-2016, 01:47 PM
Supporting a social safety net does not equal "defending legions of American "deadbeats" all over the country". I understand you think you've come up with a brilliant point, but you haven't.

Liberals aren't mocking these idiots because they are Christians or white or gun owners. They mock them because they come off as ignorant, angry, hypocritical fools.

http://www.rawstory.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/oregon_bloodbath_160127a-800x430.jpg

And yet so many people think these guys were angry about taxes... Shows ya who is actually ignorant...

domer76
02-18-2016, 01:47 PM
So what is it about the Bundys that they find so objectionable? Could it be because they are white Christian gun-owners?

Sure, why the fuck not?

AeonPax
02-18-2016, 01:50 PM
`
`
Democrats are convulsing with paroxysms of rage - Very colorful language.

Ethereal
02-18-2016, 01:50 PM
Supporting a social safety net does not equal "defending legions of American "deadbeats" all over the country". I understand you think you've come up with a brilliant point, but you haven't.

No, of course it isn't. When you take money from someone who earned it and give it to someone who didn't earn it, that's not supporting a "deadbeat", that's a "social safety net". You're only a "deadbeat" when you refuse to pay government bureaucrats for the privilege of working the land that nature provided.


Liberals aren't mocking these idiots because they are Christians or white or gun owners.

Real liberals wouldn't mock them at all. Democrats, however, are not real liberals, and that is why they almost always find themselves defending authoritarianism and collectivism.


They mock them because they come off as ignorant, angry, hypocritical fools.

http://www.rawstory.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/oregon_bloodbath_160127a-800x430.jpg

Oh, sure. I totally believe you.

Ethereal
02-18-2016, 01:51 PM
I can totally see how a bird sanctuary and the Constitution are related.

It's just too bad the Bundys weren't from Mexico, then Democrats would have given them amnesty and showed them to the welfare office.

Ethereal
02-18-2016, 01:52 PM
Sure, why the $#@! not?

I commend your honesty.

decedent
02-18-2016, 01:53 PM
It's just too bad the Bundys weren't from Mexico, then Democrats would have given them amnesty and showed them to the welfare office.

I'm sure that the militants have no experience with social assistance.

Ethereal
02-18-2016, 01:55 PM
I'm sure that the militants have no experience with social assistance.

I'm sure they don't. They actually work for a living, unlike millions of Democrats.

domer76
02-18-2016, 01:55 PM
It's just too bad the Bundys weren't from Mexico, then Democrats would have given them amnesty and showed them to the welfare office.

"Would have". Link?

Cigar
02-18-2016, 01:55 PM
I can totally see how a bird sanctuary and the Constitution are related.

Birds Don't Shoot Back :laugh:

Private Pickle
02-18-2016, 01:57 PM
I'm sure that the militants have no experience with social assistance.

Is it really social assistance if half of society disagrees with it?

decedent
02-18-2016, 01:57 PM
I'm sure they don't. They actually work for a living, unlike millions of Democrats.

Yes, not one of them has claimed disability or welfare. They're hard-working patriots, after all.

Private Pickle
02-18-2016, 01:57 PM
Birds Don't Shoot Back :laugh:

Neither does the Constitution...

Private Pickle
02-18-2016, 01:57 PM
Yes, not one of them has claimed disability or welfare. They're hard-working patriots, after all.

Cliven is a millionaire...

Ethereal
02-18-2016, 02:00 PM
If you're from Mexico and you illegally occupy America, Obama grants you amnesty, and his Democrat followers cheer him on.

But if you're a US citizen and you occupy what is supposed to be your own property, then Democrats turn into merciless law-and-order types who want you crushed.

No, no inconsistency or hypocrisy there.

Ethereal
02-18-2016, 02:02 PM
Yes, not one of them has claimed disability or welfare. They're hard-working patriots, after all.

Oh, so now you're critical of people who utilize disability and welfare. Fancy that. Where were you when the Democrat party was bankrupting America with trillions of dollars of handouts?

Common Sense
02-18-2016, 02:02 PM
No, of course it isn't. When you take money from someone who earned it and give it to someone who didn't earn it, that's not supporting a "deadbeat", that's a "social safety net". You're only a "deadbeat" when you refuse to pay government bureaucrats for the privilege of working the land that nature provided.



Real liberals wouldn't mock them at all. Democrats, however, are not real liberals, and that is why they almost always find themselves defending authoritarianism and collectivism.



Oh, sure. I totally believe you.

OK...

Ethereal
02-18-2016, 02:04 PM
It's too bad the Bundys weren't executives at Citigroup, otherwise Obama would have bailed them out.

Common Sense
02-18-2016, 02:07 PM
Anger clouds people's judgement.

decedent
02-18-2016, 02:07 PM
Broke, unemployed and on disability: Here’s how the Oregon militants can afford to play ‘patriot’ games
(http://www.rawstory.com/2016/01/broke-unemployed-and-on-disability-heres-how-the-oregon-militants-can-afford-to-play-patriot-games/)

As the militia stand-off in Oregon comes up on one week, speculation turns to the financial resources that allow men to up and leave their jobs — reportedly for however long it takes — to take an uninvited stand for freedom in an empty bird sanctuary.

According to experts who study right-wing movements, militia members barely get by, with some living on government disability checks and the earnings of their neglected wives.

In an interview with The Oregonian, Mark Pitcavage, who has studied far-right movements for 22 years, said most militia members live hand to mouth.

“These guys are broke,” he said. “Right-wing extremists, generally speaking, have very little money.”




Cliven is a millionaire...

He came up with the brilliant business model of using the peoples' land for free.

Common
02-18-2016, 02:08 PM
I dont have a thing against the bundys nor anyone other ranchers like them. I certainly dont hold them being white and gun owners against them. I dont rant and rage about them. I would like to add that republicans rant and rage over issues just as much as democrats.

Now what do I have against the bundys. They "illegally" grazed their herds on land that DID NOT BELONG TO THEM. To allow the bundys to get away with it then everyone must be allowed to break the law. Im all for cliven bundys arrest.

His sons at the behest of cliven bundy take over a federal building armed and make threats. That cant be allowed to stand ANYWHERE for any reason. The one that was killed brought it on himself and had declared he was willing to die, he got his wish. The others arrested to that I say good.

decedent
02-18-2016, 02:09 PM
It's too bad the Bundys weren't executives at Citigroup, otherwise Obama would have bailed them out.

Because they can totally read.

Ethereal
02-18-2016, 02:12 PM
Anger clouds people's judgement.

That's some world class discussion right there.

Common Sense
02-18-2016, 02:12 PM
That's some world class discussion right there.

When in Rome....

domer76
02-18-2016, 02:14 PM
It's too bad the Bundys weren't executives at Citigroup, otherwise Obama would have bailed them out.

"Would have". Link?

Ethereal
02-18-2016, 02:19 PM
Broke, unemployed and on disability: Here’s how the Oregon militants can afford to play ‘patriot’ games
(http://www.rawstory.com/2016/01/broke-unemployed-and-on-disability-heres-how-the-oregon-militants-can-afford-to-play-patriot-games/)

As the militia stand-off in Oregon comes up on one week, speculation turns to the financial resources that allow men to up and leave their jobs — reportedly for however long it takes — to take an uninvited stand for freedom in an empty bird sanctuary.

According to experts who study right-wing movements, militia members barely get by, with some living on government disability checks and the earnings of their neglected wives.

In an interview with The Oregonian, Mark Pitcavage, who has studied far-right movements for 22 years, said most militia members live hand to mouth.

“These guys are broke,” he said. “Right-wing extremists, generally speaking, have very little money.”

Well, then you should love these guys. They're like the typical Democrat voter.


He came up with the brilliant business model of using the peoples' land for free.

He must have learned it from Democrats, the party of freeloading.

Ethereal
02-18-2016, 02:25 PM
Because they can totally read.

Hey, make jokes about Democrat hypocrisy. Maybe that will distract people from it.

Private Pickle
02-18-2016, 02:26 PM
Broke, unemployed and on disability: Here’s how the Oregon militants can afford to play ‘patriot’ games
(http://www.rawstory.com/2016/01/broke-unemployed-and-on-disability-heres-how-the-oregon-militants-can-afford-to-play-patriot-games/)

As the militia stand-off in Oregon comes up on one week, speculation turns to the financial resources that allow men to up and leave their jobs — reportedly for however long it takes — to take an uninvited stand for freedom in an empty bird sanctuary.

According to experts who study right-wing movements, militia members barely get by, with some living on government disability checks and the earnings of their neglected wives.

In an interview with The Oregonian, Mark Pitcavage, who has studied far-right movements for 22 years, said most militia members live hand to mouth.

“These guys are broke,” he said. “Right-wing extremists, generally speaking, have very little money.”





He came up with the brilliant business model of using the peoples' land for free.

Oh the land isn't the "peoples'". Sorry you think that...

Private Pickle
02-18-2016, 02:28 PM
I dont have a thing against the bundys nor anyone other ranchers like them. I certainly dont hold them being white and gun owners against them. I dont rant and rage about them. I would like to add that republicans rant and rage over issues just as much as democrats.

Now what do I have against the bundys. They "illegally" grazed their herds on land that DID NOT BELONG TO THEM. To allow the bundys to get away with it then everyone must be allowed to break the law. Im all for cliven bundys arrest.

His sons at the behest of cliven bundy take over a federal building armed and make threats. That cant be allowed to stand ANYWHERE for any reason. The one that was killed brought it on himself and had declared he was willing to die, he got his wish. The others arrested to that I say good.

He had his hands up and was shot 6 times and then 3 more times after he fell down while never having a gun in his hand...

He must need to be black for that to matter...

Private Pickle
02-18-2016, 02:29 PM
Hey, make jokes about Democrat hypocrisy. Maybe that will distract people from it.

And that is why it's OK if the government hands out capital punishments for these guys but the Occupy Wallstreet guys get a trespassing charge...

Crepitus
02-18-2016, 02:29 PM
`
`
Democrats are convulsing with paroxysms of rage - Very colorful language.
Ethereal is eloquent but misguided.

Ethereal
02-18-2016, 02:31 PM
When in Rome....

What did I do wrong, aside from questioning the holy Democrat party's intentions?

Crepitus
02-18-2016, 02:31 PM
I'm sure they don't. They actually work for a living, unlike millions of Democrats.
You don't think that being allowed to graze your cattle on someone elses land for less than 10% of the average cost to feed them is government assistance?

Ethereal
02-18-2016, 02:32 PM
Ethereal is eloquent but misguided.

If you think I'm misguided, then demonstrate it using logic and evidence.

Crepitus
02-18-2016, 02:34 PM
I dont have a thing against the bundys nor anyone other ranchers like them. I certainly dont hold them being white and gun owners against them. I dont rant and rage about them. I would like to add that republicans rant and rage over issues just as much as democrats.

Now what do I have against the bundys. They "illegally" grazed their herds on land that DID NOT BELONG TO THEM. To allow the bundys to get away with it then everyone must be allowed to break the law. Im all for cliven bundys arrest.

His sons at the behest of cliven bundy take over a federal building armed and make threats. That cant be allowed to stand ANYWHERE for any reason. The one that was killed brought it on himself and had declared he was willing to die, he got his wish. The others arrested to that I say good.
Thank you for being a voice of reason.

Crepitus
02-18-2016, 02:38 PM
He had his hands up and was shot 6 times and then 3 more times after he fell down while never having a gun in his hand...

He must need to be black for that to matter...
He reached for a gun (he did actually have one unlike so many other incidents), he had been in an armed standoff with law enforcement for weeks, he had publically stated his willingness to shoot and to die before surrendering, and he fell afoul of the same training that most conservatives defend when it happens elsewhere.

Ethereal
02-18-2016, 02:38 PM
You don't think that being allowed to graze your cattle on someone elses land for less than 10% of the average cost to feed them is government assistance?

Your question presupposes the land was "someone else's", and this presupposition is loaded with assumptions about the fundamental nature of land ownership that not everyone agrees with. I guess you just expect me to unquestioningly accept your premises even though I think they're problematic?

Common Sense
02-18-2016, 02:38 PM
He had his hands up and was shot 6 times and then 3 more times after he fell down while never having a gun in his hand...

He must need to be black for that to matter...

Come on, they ran from police and then when he exited the car he reached into his pocket. This is a man who had earlier claimed he would rather die than be arrested.

The shooting was unfortunate, but justified.

Crepitus
02-18-2016, 02:39 PM
If you think I'm misguided, then demonstrate it using logic and evidence.
Not going to get into it, but you've amply demonstrated it in this thread.

Ethereal
02-18-2016, 02:40 PM
Thank you for being a voice of reason.

I don't think Common is a Democrat though, so I'm not sure how his post contradicts anything I've said.

Ethereal
02-18-2016, 02:41 PM
Come on, they ran from police and then when he exited the car he reached into his pocket. This is a man who had earlier claimed he would rather die than be arrested.

The shooting was unfortunate, but justified.

Common Sense says so, so that's that.

Ethereal
02-18-2016, 02:42 PM
Not going to get into it, but you've amply demonstrated it in this thread.

Demonstrated what? That I disagree with Democrats on the Bundy issue and question their intentions? Oh, perish the thought!

Common Sense
02-18-2016, 02:47 PM
Common Sense says so, so that's that.

The video shows it fairly clearly.

Deep breaths.

Private Pickle
02-18-2016, 02:47 PM
He reached for a gun (he did actually have one unlike so many other incidents), he had been in an armed standoff with law enforcement for weeks, he had publically stated his willingness to shoot and to die before surrendering, and he fell afoul of the same training that most conservatives defend when it happens elsewhere.

He did not reach. He was reacting to being shot 6 times...and then another 3 times after he fell...

Private Pickle
02-18-2016, 02:48 PM
Come on, they ran from police and then when he exited the car he reached into his pocket. This is a man who had earlier claimed he would rather die than be arrested.

The shooting was unfortunate, but justified.

He did not reach. The fact is, he never had a gun in his hand and if he was a different color a lot of people here would be singing a different tune.

Common Sense
02-18-2016, 02:50 PM
He did not reach. The fact is, he never had a gun in his hand and if he was a different color a lot of people here would be singing a different tune.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YiuIN2DO6vo

No, clearly he has his hands up the whole time.:rollseyes:

domer76
02-18-2016, 02:51 PM
He did not reach. The fact is, he never had a gun in his hand and if he was a different color a lot of people here would be singing a different tune.


"If/would". Link?

Private Pickle
02-18-2016, 02:53 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YiuIN2DO6vo

No, clearly he has his hands up the whole time.:rollseyes:

He put them down when reacting to being shot...then immediately put them back up again while shouting "don't shoot" at the cops...then he was shot again a few more times...he fell and was shot 3 more times.

Also, one of the Bundy brothers was also shot. Why isn't anyone talking about him? Because he lived? He too had his hands up when he was shot.

Chris
02-18-2016, 02:53 PM
Outrage might be stretching it a bit.

Mocking these hypocrites is just entertainment.

Why are some so delighted with their mockery of others? What is the purpose of that?

Private Pickle
02-18-2016, 02:54 PM
"If/would". Link?

Lazy? Need me to link less suspect videos where there was an outrage? Plenty of them out there...

Cigar
02-18-2016, 02:55 PM
Why are some so delighted with their mockery of others? What is the purpose of that?

hypocrisy should always be mocked :laugh:

Private Pickle
02-18-2016, 02:55 PM
Why are some so delighted with their mockery of others? What is the purpose of that?

Especially those with valid concerns about the direction of this country...

Private Pickle
02-18-2016, 02:55 PM
hypocrisy should always be mocked :laugh:

True...which is why you're always mocked...

Crepitus
02-18-2016, 02:59 PM
Your question presupposes the land was "someone else's", and this presupposition is loaded with assumptions about the fundamental nature of land ownership that not everyone agrees with. I guess you just expect me to unquestioningly accept your premises even though I think they're problematic?
Again, if you wanna talk about land ownership you need to go back to the indigenous people. The federal government purchased or took the land and then sold and granted the more usable portions out as homesteads. What is left is what went unwanted for decades and would be a huge burden on the states.

Ethereal
02-18-2016, 03:00 PM
The video shows it fairly clearly.

Deep breaths.

I know what the video shows. I watched it several times. Yet somehow I managed to come to a different conclusion than you. But it must be because I'm crazy or angry, right? It can't be because you're wrong and I'm right. That's impossible.

So, Common Sense, having spoken, let us end this deliberation, for it is unnecessary in light of the world-class discussion facilitating "VIP's" contributions.

Private Pickle
02-18-2016, 03:02 PM
Again, if you wanna talk about land ownership you need to go back to the indigenous people. The federal government purchased or took the land and then sold and granted the more usable portions out as homesteads. What is left is what went unwanted for decades and would be a huge burden on the states.

OK. We've gone back there. Now let's catch up to present day and make sure two wrongs don't make a right...

Common Sense
02-18-2016, 03:03 PM
I know what the video shows. I watched it several times. Yet somehow I managed to come to a different conclusion than you. But it must be because I'm crazy or angry, right? It can't be because you're wrong and I'm right. That's impossible.

So, Common Sense, having spoken, let us end this deliberation, for it is unnecessary in light of the world-class discussion facilitating "VIP's" contributions.

Clearly we see two different things...and yes, I do sense anger in your posts. That's why I assert that it has clouded your judgement.

Fine, let's end the discussion.

Crepitus
02-18-2016, 03:04 PM
He did not reach. The fact is, he never had a gun in his hand and if he was a different color a lot of people here would be singing a different tune.
What it boils down to is playing with guns around law enforcement is a bad idea no matter what color you are.

Matty
02-18-2016, 03:05 PM
Clearly we see two different things...and yes, I do sense anger in your posts. That's why I assert that it has clouded your judgement.

Fine, let's end the discussion.




What did you see?

Ethereal
02-18-2016, 03:05 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YiuIN2DO6vo

No, clearly he has his hands up the whole time.:rollseyes:

So did he reach before or after he was shot? And why did a federal agent brazenly break protocol by running in front of Finnicum's vehicle? Do you think federal agents are trained to run in front of oncoming vehicles? I would hope not, because that would be a very bad standard to have.

But let's assume the worse case scenario: He reached before he was shot. Does that mean it's okay for officers to shoot someone based purely on them reaching for something in a dynamic situation? Do officers NOT have to positively identify a deadly weapon when they employ deadly force?

Ethereal
02-18-2016, 03:06 PM
He put them down when reacting to being shot...then immediately put them back up again while shouting "don't shoot" at the cops...then he was shot again a few more times...he fell and was shot 3 more times.

Also, one of the Bundy brothers was also shot. Why isn't anyone talking about him? Because he lived? He too had his hands up when he was shot.

Dude, how dare you arrive at a different conclusion than the Democrats who hate the Bundys. You must be really angry and/or crazy.

Crepitus
02-18-2016, 03:07 PM
I don't think Common is a Democrat though, so I'm not sure how his post contradicts anything I've said.
It doesn't contradict anything I've been saying either.

You don't have to be a democrat to be right.

Ethereal
02-18-2016, 03:07 PM
hypocrisy should always be mocked :laugh:

Not to mention irony.

Chris
02-18-2016, 03:10 PM
hypocrisy should always be mocked :laugh:

Problem is the hypocrisy is generally assumed. No case is made. I think it's too often used to mask not really having something rational to say.

Crepitus
02-18-2016, 03:10 PM
So did he reach before or after he was shot? And why did a federal agent brazenly break protocol by running in front of Finnicum's vehicle? Do you think federal agents are trained to run in front of oncoming vehicles? I would hope not, because that would be a very bad standard to have.

But let's assume the worse case scenario: He reached before he was shot. Does that mean it's okay for officers to shoot someone based purely on them reaching for something in a dynamic situation? Do officers NOT have to positively identify a deadly weapon when they employ deadly force?
Actually no, I don't think they do. I think all they need is a reasonable concern for their safety. Pretty sure they had that.

Chris
02-18-2016, 03:12 PM
Especially those with valid concerns about the direction of this country...

Not catching your drift... You mean mocking those with genuine concerns, with something to say, just to try and drown them out, castigate them.

Common Sense
02-18-2016, 03:12 PM
So did he reach before or after he was shot? And why did a federal agent brazenly break protocol by running in front of Finnicum's vehicle? Do you think federal agents are trained to run in front of oncoming vehicles? I would hope not, because that would be a very bad standard to have.

But let's assume the worse case scenario: He reached before he was shot. Does that mean it's okay for officers to shoot someone based purely on them reaching for something in a dynamic situation? Do officers NOT have to positively identify a deadly weapon when they employ deadly force?

I can't speak to protocol.

You can see when he is shot. You can also see that he is reaching into his pocket. When an officer is confronted with a man that has run from the police, claimed that he would rather die than be arrested and then he reaches into his pocket...we'll yes, an officer is justified in shooting at that point. A gun was found on him in the pocket he was reaching for.

Ethereal
02-18-2016, 03:14 PM
Again, if you wanna talk about land ownership you need to go back to the indigenous people.

That's fine. That's what I'm looking for, is a "talk" about the nature of land rights. But a "talk" implies a willingness on the part of both parties to indulge one another in a discussion of the substance of the issue. But you seem to believe that my desire to "talk about land ownership" is unworthy of serious consideration. I don't agree. A political forum is where such talks should take place.

So feel free to reference the natives, or Teddy Roosevelt, if you like, just, please, reference something other than your assumptions and your presuppositions about the nature of land rights.


The federal government purchased or took the land and then sold and granted the more usable portions out as homesteads. What is left is what went unwanted for decades and would be a huge burden on the states.

Another way of saying that is the federal government stole the land through military conquest.

And they aren't a "huge burden" on the MAJORITY of states in America where the federal government "manages" almost no land at all.

Ethereal
02-18-2016, 03:21 PM
Clearly we see two different things...and yes, I do sense anger in your posts. That's why I assert that it has clouded your judgement.

Fine, let's end the discussion.

The discussion ended when you started trafficking in innuendo about my mental state. That's some world class contributions there.

Private Pickle
02-18-2016, 03:24 PM
What it boils down to is playing with guns around law enforcement is a bad idea no matter what color you are.

He wasn't playing with a gun... He had his hands up...

Ethereal
02-18-2016, 03:24 PM
It doesn't contradict anything I've been saying either.

You don't have to be a democrat to be right.

I never said otherwise.

Common Sense
02-18-2016, 03:24 PM
The discussion ended when you started trafficking in innuendo about my mental state. That's some world class contributions there.

I'm sorry, but I called it as I saw it. Your OP and subsequent posts came off as angry, overtly sarcastic and lacking in clarity. My apologies if you were offended.

Chris
02-18-2016, 03:26 PM
The discussion ended when you started trafficking in innuendo about my mental state. That's some world class contributions there.

Just another way for some to divert discussion.

Ethereal
02-18-2016, 03:26 PM
Actually no, I don't think they do. I think all they need is a reasonable concern for their safety. Pretty sure they had that.

"Reasonable concern", whatever that means.

Common Sense
02-18-2016, 03:27 PM
Just another way for some to divert discussion.

I wasn't diverting the discussion. I was simply stating my opinion.

But thank you for your opinion.

domer76
02-18-2016, 03:28 PM
Lazy? Need me to link less suspect videos where there was an outrage? Plenty of them out there...

Show us the link regarding "if" he was a different color.

(This should be interesting)

Ethereal
02-18-2016, 03:32 PM
I can't speak to protocol.

You can see when he is shot.

I don't recall seeing any definitive evidence in either case. What lead you to that conclusion, specifically?


You can also see that he is reaching into his pocket. When an officer is confronted with a man that has run from the police, claimed that he would rather die than be arrested and then he reaches into his pocket...we'll yes, an officer is justified in shooting at that point. A gun was found on him in the pocket he was reaching for.

So people's past statements are fair game for employing deadly force against them? How far into the past are police allowed to go in order to justify shooting someone?

And why did that federal agent run in front of a moving vehicle? Do you think that was a good idea?

Safety
02-18-2016, 03:35 PM
Again, if you wanna talk about land ownership you need to go back to the indigenous people. The federal government purchased or took the land and then sold and granted the more usable portions out as homesteads. What is left is what went unwanted for decades and would be a huge burden on the states.

Realize the audience you are speaking to. If a farmer in Georgia decided to graze his cattle on the land of some company that owns it, he would be arrested for trespassing as he should. He does not own the land, another entity does. Just because a few doesn't like the government does not mean it's ok to grasp for straws with an argument.

If only my father had known he would have so much support to graze his cattle on Ft. Gordon for free.....:rollseyes:

Common Sense
02-18-2016, 03:37 PM
I don't recall seeing any definitive evidence in either case. What lead you to that conclusion, specifically?



So people's past statements are fair game for employing deadly force against them? How far into the past are police allowed to go in order to justify shooting someone?

And why did that federal agent run in front of a moving vehicle? Do you think that was a good idea?

What officer are you talking about? The officer at the roadblock that he almost killed?

People's statements give officers some information on their mindsets. It was also well known that he was armed and had stated he would use said arms against officers. I think it's fair for an officer to keep that in mind.

The justification for shooting wasn't his previous statements, it was his failure to obey a lawful order and reaching for a gun. The man was armed, had almost run down an officer while evading police and then reached for a gun. What would you expect the officers to do? Wait to get shot then open fire?

Ethereal
02-18-2016, 03:38 PM
I'm sorry, but I called it as I saw it.

Does that mean I'm allowed to make an issue of your mental state? Or is that a privilege only reserved for the VIP class?


Your OP and subsequent posts came off as angry, overtly sarcastic and lacking in clarity. My apologies if you were offended.

I'm not "offended" or "angry". I just happen to have a different opinion than you about the Bundy incident in Oregon. You're the one who seems offended that I would dare to disagree with you.

Ethereal
02-18-2016, 03:39 PM
I wasn't diverting the discussion. I was simply stating my opinion.

Your opinion on my mental state which, last I checked, was not allowed by the forum rules... or so I've been led to believe.

nathanbforrest45
02-18-2016, 03:40 PM
True, but Democrats have no problem supporting and defending legions of American "deadbeats" all over the country. That's what their entire political party is based on, so it can't be because they're American. It has to be something else. So what is it about the Bundys that they find so objectionable? Could it be because they are white Christian gun-owners?


Unlike the OWS crowd the Bundy's were not defying corporate America but the all seeing, all knowing, government. This was an apostasy against their one true God

nathanbforrest45
02-18-2016, 03:42 PM
Real Tough-Guys don't takeover Empty Building :laugh:


Wow, just frigging wow. How mind boggling is that.

Ethereal
02-18-2016, 03:42 PM
Realize the audience you are speaking to.

Which is who? Someone who disagrees with Democrats and thinks they're phony? Must be a pretty big audience then.


If a farmer in Georgia decided to graze his cattle on the land of some company that owns it, he would be arrested for trespassing as he should. He does not own the land, another entity does. Just because a few doesn't like the government does not mean it's ok to grasp for straws with an argument.

If only my father had known he would have so much support to graze his cattle on Ft. Gordon for free.....:rollseyes:

So because some farmer in Georgia is getting screwed, that means it's okay for the Bundys to get screwed, too?

nathanbforrest45
02-18-2016, 03:43 PM
Supporting a social safety net does not equal "defending legions of American "deadbeats" all over the country". I understand you think you've come up with a brilliant point, but you haven't.

Liberals aren't mocking these idiots because they are Christians or white or gun owners. They mock them because they come off as ignorant, angry, hypocritical fools.

http://www.rawstory.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/oregon_bloodbath_160127a-800x430.jpg

Only to Canadians who don't know any better.

Ethereal
02-18-2016, 03:44 PM
What officer are you talking about? The officer at the roadblock that he almost killed?

The one who ran in front of Lavoy's truck.


People's statements give officers some information on their mindsets. It was also well known that he was armed and had stated he would use said arms against officers. I think it's fair for an officer to keep that in mind.

The justification for shooting wasn't his previous statements, it was his failure to obey a lawful order and reaching for a gun. The man was armed, had almost run down an officer while evading police and then reached for a gun. What would you expect the officers to do? Wait to get shot then open fire?

I expect them to wait until they've positively identified a deadly weapon before they employ deadly force, i.e., standard protocol.

Chris
02-18-2016, 03:44 PM
I wasn't diverting the discussion. I was simply stating my opinion.

But thank you for your opinion.

Opinion about something unrelated to the topic. That's called diversion. It's a bad, fallacious habit.

Private Pickle
02-18-2016, 03:46 PM
Show us the link regarding "if" he was a different color.

(This should be interesting)

I said that in this thread. Want me to link this thread?

Common Sense
02-18-2016, 03:47 PM
Does that mean I'm allowed to make an issue of your mental state? Or is that a privilege only reserved for the VIP class?



I'm not "offended" or "angry". I just happen to have a different opinion than you about the Bundy incident in Oregon. You're the one who seems offended that I would dare to disagree with you.

Go ahead, I really don't care. If you feel that you are held to a different standard because of this VIP business, that's your issue.

I don't care if you disagree with me. Lots of people disagree with me.

Common Sense
02-18-2016, 03:48 PM
Opinion about something unrelated to the topic. That's called diversion. It's a bad, fallacious habit.

I think it has a lot to do with the topic.

It wasn't diversion nor is it a habit. But thank you for your opinion.

Ethereal
02-18-2016, 03:51 PM
As usual, the Democrat phony brigade has managed to derail the topic and distract from the underlying issue of Democrat hypocrisy and inconsistency when it comes to supporting welfare dependency and illegal immigration. They don't want to talk about that because it reveals how hyperbolic and insincere they really are.

There are literally millions of foreign nationals illegally occupying America as we speak, many of whom rely heavily on the welfare system, yet they get AMNESTY from Democrats. So where is the amnesty plan for the ranchers who are illegally occupying federal lands in the western US? Never going to happen, because Democrats don't care about principles or consistency. They only care about how something makes them feel inside, and supporting illegal immigrants makes them feel good about themselves. Conversely, heaping bile and venom on the Bundys makes them feel good, so they do that too. It really is that simple.

Common Sense
02-18-2016, 03:51 PM
The one who ran in front of Lavoy's truck.



I expect them to wait until they've positively identified a deadly weapon before they employ deadly force, i.e., standard protocol.

As it tried to evade the roadblock? I could only guess what he was trying to do.

They probably could have technically shot the driver for endangering the officers at the roadblock.

Knowing that you have armed individuals and seeing them reach into pockets is enough justification. Do you really expect an officer to wait for someone to draw their weapon out before firing?

domer76
02-18-2016, 03:52 PM
I said that in this thread. Want me to link this thread?

I want you to provide a link to validate your claim "if" he was a different color. Since he WASN'T a different color, the proof will be interesting.

Common Sense
02-18-2016, 03:52 PM
As usual, the Democrat phony brigade has managed to derail the topic and distract from the underlying issue of Democrat hypocrisy and inconsistency when it comes to supporting welfare dependency and illegal immigration. They don't want to talk about that because it reveals how hyperbolic and insincere they really are.

There are literally millions of foreign nationals illegally occupying America as we speak, many of whom rely heavily on the welfare system, yet they get AMNESTY from Democrats. So where is the amnesty plan for the ranchers who are illegally occupying federal lands in the western US? Never going to happen, because Democrats don't care about principles or consistency. They only care about how something makes them feel inside, and supporting illegal immigrants makes them feel good about themselves. Conversely, heaping bile and venom on the Bundys makes them feel good, so they do that too. It really is that simple.

I've addressed that issue.

Ethereal
02-18-2016, 03:54 PM
Go ahead, I really don't care. If you feel that you are held to a different standard because of this VIP business, that's your issue.

I don't care if you disagree with me. Lots of people disagree with me.

I just find it funny that someone who accepted a "VIP" designation would flaunt the rules like that.

Common Sense
02-18-2016, 03:55 PM
I just find it funny that someone who accepted a "VIP" designation would flaunt the rules like that.

Report me.

Private Pickle
02-18-2016, 03:56 PM
I want you to provide a link to validate your claim "if" he was a different color. Since he WASN'T a different color, the proof will be interesting.

You want my to provide a link that validates my opinion. Ok I'll get right on that. In the meantime you work on a link that refutes my claim. ;)

hanger4
02-18-2016, 03:57 PM
I want you to provide a link to validate your claim "if" he was a different color. Since he WASN'T a different color, the proof will be interesting.

You demanding a link for validation. Now that's funny.

Sorry Ethereal I just couldn't give domer's hypocrisy a pass.

Private Pickle
02-18-2016, 03:58 PM
I've addressed that issue.

You've defered to talking points. Nothing more.

Ethereal
02-18-2016, 03:59 PM
As it tried to evade the roadblock? I could only guess what he was trying to do.

They probably could have technically shot the driver for endangering the officers at the roadblock.

He placed himself into danger by jumping in front of the vehicle. Do you think that was a good idea? Do you think that is standard procedure?


Knowing that you have armed individuals and seeing them reach into pockets is enough justification. Do you really expect an officer to wait for someone to draw their weapon out before firing?

They didn't know he was armed until after they shot him and searched his person. And, of course, I expect the officer to positively identify a deadly weapon before using deadly force. If Marines can do it Iraq, then there is no reason why cops can't do it in America.

Ethereal
02-18-2016, 04:00 PM
Report me.

My commentary is sufficient.

zelmo1234
02-18-2016, 04:01 PM
Real Tough-Guys don't takeover Empty Building :laugh:

Are not the real tough Guys still out hunting down Travon's and Brown's killers?

del
02-18-2016, 04:01 PM
Democrats are convulsing with paroxysms of rage in response to the Bundy incident in Oregon. But what is their collective fit of rage actually based on?

It can't be the Bundys' alleged status as "deadbeats" because the Democrat party's entire existence is based on supporting and defending legions of deadbeats who depend on government welfare.

And it can't be the illegal nature of the Bundys' occupation because the Democrat party generally favors amnesty and paths to citizenship for the millions of foreign nationals illegally occupying America.

So what is the real reason for their outrage?


outrage

lol

Common Sense
02-18-2016, 04:04 PM
He placed himself into danger by jumping in front of the vehicle. Do you think that was a good idea? Do you think that is standard procedure?



They didn't know he was armed until after they shot him and searched his person. And, of course, I expect the officer to positively identify a deadly weapon before using deadly force. If Marines can do it Iraq, then there is no reason why cops can't do it in America.

I certainly don't think the officer was trying to get hit. We don't know what he saw from his perspective. What is your point?

They knew he was armed, he ran from the police and almost ran down officers. Reaching into your pocket will get you killed. It did. He got his wish.

Ethereal
02-18-2016, 04:09 PM
I've addressed that issue.

No you did not. All you did was assert the difference between supporting welfare and supporting deadbeats, an assertion you neglected to substantiate in any way.

You never even attempted to address the outright hypocrisy of supporting amnesty for millions of foreign nationals illegally occupying America. I don't blame you for dodging that one. What response is there? It's obvious hypocrisy.

Ethereal
02-18-2016, 04:12 PM
I certainly don't think the officer was trying to get hit. We don't know what he saw from his perspective. What is your point?

That the officer broke protocol and ran in front of a moving vehicle.


They knew he was armed, he ran from the police and almost ran down officers. Reaching into your pocket will get you killed. It did. He got his wish.

So you keep insisting that they "knew" he was armed even though his firearm was concealed. Did these federal agents have x-ray vision or something?

Ethereal
02-18-2016, 04:13 PM
You demanding a link for validation. Now that's funny.

Sorry Ethereal I just couldn't give domer's hypocrisy a pass.

No need to apologize. Hypocrisy is in the Democrat DNA.

Ethereal
02-18-2016, 04:14 PM
outrage

lol

Yea, Democrats never display outrage at things. They are the very standard of contemplative sagacity.

Crepitus
02-18-2016, 04:17 PM
Your question presupposes the land was "someone else's", and this presupposition is loaded with assumptions about the fundamental nature of land ownership that not everyone agrees with. I guess you just expect me to unquestioningly accept your premises even though I think they're problematic?
It is someone else's, I know it goes against your philosophy, but facts are facts.

del
02-18-2016, 04:17 PM
Yea, Democrats never display outrage at things. They are the very standard of contemplative sagacity.

just like you

Crepitus
02-18-2016, 04:18 PM
Demonstrated what? That I disagree with Democrats on the Bundy issue and question their intentions? Oh, perish the thought!
"not going to get into it"

Common Sense
02-18-2016, 04:19 PM
No you did not. All you did was assert the difference between supporting welfare and supporting deadbeats, an assertion you neglected to substantiate in any way.

You never even attempted to address the outright hypocrisy of supporting amnesty for millions of foreign nationals illegally occupying America. I don't blame you for dodging that one. What response is there? It's obvious hypocrisy.

Many people from both parties support some sort of path to citizenship for those people. Even people who are against citizenship can see the difference between people coming to the US to work and have a better life and people taking over federal land and trying to instigate a conflict between them and the federal government.

You paint all people who are on social assistance and illegal immigrants as deadbeats. That's why I have a hard time taking your assertion seriously.

I know you think you've hit a home run with this comparison. In my mind however it's a foul ball.

Ethereal
02-18-2016, 04:19 PM
Even Democrats themselves are being victimized by Democrat phoniness. Just look at the rift between Clinton and Sanders supporters. The Democrat machine has targeted the Sanders people with their phony outrage machine, too. First it was over the allegedly sexist undertones of the Sanders campaign, and then it morphed into fake outrage over his supposedly uncivil attacks on Clinton's Wall Street connections. You guys are only getting a taste of it, though. People who are outside the party have this phony outrage machine directed at them almost constantly.

Ethereal
02-18-2016, 04:20 PM
It is someone else's, I know it goes against your philosophy, but facts are facts.

Your opinion is not a fact, as much as you'd like it to be.

Common Sense
02-18-2016, 04:20 PM
That the officer broke protocol and ran in front of a moving vehicle.



So you keep insisting that they "knew" he was armed even though his firearm was concealed. Did these federal agents have x-ray vision or something?

Like I said, we don't know what the officer saw. He may have thought they were going to ram the car he was behind.

They were all armed. They made that quite clear from the beginning. The officers were within their rights and protocol to shoot.

del
02-18-2016, 04:21 PM
those pesky democrats

they're the root of all evil

Ethereal
02-18-2016, 04:22 PM
just like you

If I'm outraged over something, I can assure you it is not phony outrage. When I post stuff about Kurdish feminists needing more support, I genuinely mean it because I'm a staunch supporter of women's equal rights as a matter of principle. I don't go around attacking American ranchers who work the land while rewarding foreign nationals for breaking the law.

del
02-18-2016, 04:24 PM
Your opinion is not a fact, as much as you'd like it to be.

and the northwest ordinance is a fact, which makes federal ownership of land both legal and constitutional.

so your opinion that these guys were perfectly within their rights to take over/use for profit land that did not belong to them is wrong.

that's a fact too.

try not to let it interrupt your contemplative sagacity.

Ethereal
02-18-2016, 04:24 PM
those pesky democrats

they're the root of all evil

I'd assign equal responsibility to both major party machines. They both churn out masses of blithering simpletons who will support any idiocy or hypocrisy. Granted, there are exceptions, but they only tend to prove the general rule.

Crepitus
02-18-2016, 04:24 PM
He did not reach. He was reacting to being shot 6 times...and then another 3 times after he fell...
Looks like a reach to me.

Crepitus
02-18-2016, 04:28 PM
OK. We've gone back there. Now let's catch up to present day and make sure two wrongs don't make a right...
Besides, the ranchers couldn't afford it.

del
02-18-2016, 04:31 PM
If I'm outraged over something, I can assure you it is not phony outrage. When I post stuff about Kurdish feminists needing more support, I genuinely mean it because I'm a staunch supporter of women's equal rights as a matter of principle. I don't go around attacking American ranchers who work the land while rewarding foreign nationals for breaking the law.

i have no doubt that you're the soul of honor.

you've assured us all of that on numerous occasions.

if you'll excuse me, i need to go count my spoons now.

Ethereal
02-18-2016, 04:33 PM
Many people from both parties support some sort of path to citizenship for those people.

I support amnesty for them. But I don't worship federal laws, so it's consistent for me to support amnesty for illegal immigrants. Can't say the same thing for the fire breathing law-and-order types who think breaking federal law is like running afoul of God himself. They can't go around acting like federal laws are sacred writs in one context and informal guidelines in the next.


Even people who are against citizenship can see the difference between people coming to the US to work and have a better life and people taking over federal land and trying to instigate a conflict between them and the federal government.

You paint all people who are on social assistance and illegal immigrants as deadbeats. That's why I have a hard time taking your assertion seriously.

I know you think you've hit a home run with this comparison. In my mind however it's a foul ball.

I don't think they're all deadbeats. The real deadbeats are the bankers who got bailed out after they destroyed the economy. It's too bad Bundy wasn't an executive at JP Morgan, otherwise Obama might have cut him a check instead.

Anyway, my use of the word "deadbeat" is only meant to illustrate how fatuous and sophomoric its application to the Bundys is. If working the land without paying the BLM makes one a "deadbeat", then there are legions of "deadbeats" out there right now who are collecting welfare checks, because many of them either do not work or do not pay into the system. At least the Bundys paid taxes on their incomes and on their business operations and provided Americans with beef products. They were a net gain to society.

Crepitus
02-18-2016, 04:34 PM
That's fine. That's what I'm looking for, is a "talk" about the nature of land rights. But a "talk" implies a willingness on the part of both parties to indulge one another in a discussion of the substance of the issue. But you seem to believe that my desire to "talk about land ownership" is unworthy of serious consideration. I don't agree. A political forum is where such talks should take place.

So feel free to reference the natives, or Teddy Roosevelt, if you like, just, please, reference something other than your assumptions and your presuppositions about the nature of land rights.



Another way of saying that is the federal government stole the land through military conquest.

And they aren't a "huge burden" on the MAJORITY of states in America where the federal government "manages" almost no land at all.
don't forget that this is the left over land that nobody wanted. It isn't really develop-able or farm-able. About the only thing you can use it for is ranching and recreation, and the ranchers can't afford it.

Ethereal
02-18-2016, 04:34 PM
Like I said, we don't know what the officer saw. He may have thought they were going to ram the car he was behind.

They were all armed. They made that quite clear from the beginning. The officers were within their rights and protocol to shoot.

You already said you couldn't speak to protocol. Now you claim they were within protocol. I can see you are being really thoughtful about this.

Common Sense
02-18-2016, 04:36 PM
I support amnesty for them. But I don't worship federal laws, so it's consistent for me to support amnesty for illegal immigrants. Can't say the same thing for the fire breathing law-and-order types who think breaking federal law is like running afoul of God himself. They can't go around acting like federal laws are sacred writs in one context and informal guidelines in the next.



I don't think they're all deadbeats. The real deadbeats are the bankers who got bailed out after they destroyed the economy. It's too bad Bundy wasn't an executive at JP Morgan, otherwise Obama might have cut him a check instead.

Anyway, my use of the word "deadbeat" is only meant to illustrate how fatuous and sophomoric its application to the Bundys is. If working the land without paying the BLM makes one a "deadbeat", then there are legions of "deadbeats" out there right now who are collecting welfare checks, because many of them either do not work or do not pay into the system. At least the Bundys paid taxes on their incomes and on their business operations and provided Americans with beef products. They were a net gain to society.

To me, the major difference is some of the language that was used by the Oregon protestors and their insistence to show up in paramilitary gear. They looked and sounded like they wanted an armed conflict. I am all for people's rights to own guns and I am all for people's rights to protest. I'm even for civil disobedience. That is a far cry however from trying to instigate and armed conflict.

Crepitus
02-18-2016, 04:36 PM
He wasn't playing with a gun... He had his hands up...
He had been playing with his gun in front of LEO for weeks.

domer76
02-18-2016, 04:37 PM
You demanding a link for validation. Now that's funny.

Sorry Ethereal I just couldn't give domer's hypocrisy a pass.

Translation = hanger doesn't have a fucking clue either

Common Sense
02-18-2016, 04:37 PM
You already said you couldn't speak to protocol. Now you claim they were within protocol. I can see you are being really thoughtful about this.

Oh, you got me...

Ethereal
02-18-2016, 04:38 PM
and the northwest ordinance is a fact, which makes federal ownership of land both legal and constitutional.

Yea, just like it was a "fact" that slaves were property, and plenty of politicians and judges sanctioned that, too.


so your opinion that these guys were perfectly within their rights to take over/use for profit land that did not belong to them is wrong.

that's a fact too.

try not to let it interrupt your contemplative sagacity.

Again, your assertion is loaded with assumptions about the nature of land rights that not everyone agrees with. I know it may be shocking that not everyone agrees with leftist orthodoxy and has an opinion about it, but you will get by, I'm sure.

domer76
02-18-2016, 04:39 PM
You want my to provide a link that validates my opinion. Ok I'll get right on that. In the meantime you work on a link that refutes my claim. ;)

I don't need a link to prove he wasn't a different color. He was white.

OK. Now, where's your link to "if" he was a different color?

Ethereal
02-18-2016, 04:39 PM
i have no doubt that you're the soul of honor.

Thanks, that means a lot to me.

Crepitus
02-18-2016, 04:40 PM
Realize the audience you are speaking to. If a farmer in Georgia decided to graze his cattle on the land of some company that owns it, he would be arrested for trespassing as he should. He does not own the land, another entity does. Just because a few doesn't like the government does not mean it's ok to grasp for straws with an argument.

If only my father had known he would have so much support to graze his cattle on Ft. Gordon for free.....:rollseyes:

Or my dad could graze his on the flint hills.

Ethereal
02-18-2016, 04:42 PM
don't forget that this is the left over land that nobody wanted.

Except the Bundys.


It isn't really develop-able or farm-able. About the only thing you can use it for is ranching and recreation, and the ranchers can't afford it.

One wonders how ranchers managed before the BLM existed.

Crepitus
02-18-2016, 04:43 PM
Your opinion is not a fact, as much as you'd like it to be.
No sir. That is not my opinion. It is a cold hard fact that the federal government owns that land whether you like it or not.

Common Sense
02-18-2016, 04:43 PM
http://assets.rollingstone.com/assets/2016/media/223227/_original/1452201822/1035x690-h_14747281.jpg

“I’m not going to end up in prison,”..."I would rather die than be caged. And I’ve lived a good life.”

Crepitus
02-18-2016, 04:43 PM
Except the Bundys.



One wonders how ranchers managed before the BLM existed.

they left those parcels alone.

Ethereal
02-18-2016, 04:47 PM
Oh, you got me...

It wasn't very hard.

Common Sense
02-18-2016, 04:48 PM
It wasn't very hard.

That's what she said.

Sorry...just a joke.

I really don't get your point though on that officer. What is your point? Do you think he was trying to get hit by the truck?

Ethereal
02-18-2016, 04:48 PM
Or my dad could graze his on the flint hills.

The Flint hills? You mean land that other people are actually living and laboring on?

Ethereal
02-18-2016, 04:50 PM
No sir. That is not my opinion. It is a cold hard fact that the federal government owns that land whether you like it or not.

How is it a "fact"? Because you say so? Because the federal government says so? If the federal government claimed to own you, would that make it a fact? I think you are confusing "might makes right" with facts. They are not the same thing.

Ethereal
02-18-2016, 04:51 PM
http://assets.rollingstone.com/assets/2016/media/223227/_original/1452201822/1035x690-h_14747281.jpg

“I’m not going to end up in prison,”..."I would rather die than be caged. And I’ve lived a good life.”

Past statements being factored into a decision to kill someone. No slippery slope there.

Peter1469
02-18-2016, 04:52 PM
Democrats are convulsing with paroxysms of rage in response to the Bundy incident in Oregon. But what is their collective fit of rage actually based on?

It can't be the Bundys' alleged status as "deadbeats" because the Democrat party's entire existence is based on supporting and defending legions of deadbeats who depend on government welfare.

And it can't be the illegal nature of the Bundys' occupation because the Democrat party generally favors amnesty and paths to citizenship for the millions of foreign nationals illegally occupying America.

So what is the real reason for their outrage?

The goal is to train all Americans to say how high when the government says jump.

Ethereal
02-18-2016, 04:52 PM
they left those parcels alone.

They homesteaded the land and worked it. And there was no overbearing federal bureaucracy to come in an extort them. It must have been a nightmare.

Ethereal
02-18-2016, 04:56 PM
That's what she said.

Sorry...just a joke.

I really don't get your point though on that officer. What is your point? Do you think he was trying to get hit by the truck?

He was trying to be a Rambo, a hero. Not only did his actions needlessly escalate the situation, it put his fellow officers in added danger, too. But what do I know? It's not like I have hundreds of hours of tactical training and experience.

Ethereal
02-18-2016, 04:56 PM
The goal is to train all Americans to say how high when the government says jump.

Ding-ding-ding!

Crepitus
02-18-2016, 04:58 PM
The Flint hills? You mean land that other people are actually living and laboring on?
Nope, national park

Crepitus
02-18-2016, 04:59 PM
How is it a "fact"? Because you say so? Because the federal government says so? If the federal government claimed to own you, would that make it a fact? I think you are confusing "might makes right" with facts. They are not the same thing.
I think you need to look up the definition of the word "fact".

hanger4
02-18-2016, 04:59 PM
Translation = hanger doesn't have a fucking clue either

Give it a rest domer. Posters ask for links from you to back up your statements all the time and you call them lazy cause they won't do your job. Now you demand a link and get all uppity when they don't produce.

hypocrite domer, own it

Crepitus
02-18-2016, 05:00 PM
They homesteaded the land and worked it. And there was no overbearing federal bureaucracy to come in an extort them. It must have been a nightmare.
Did you not read any of my posts? The land that ended up under federal management is the land no one was using or wanted.

del
02-18-2016, 05:00 PM
Yea, just like it was a "fact" that slaves were property, and plenty of politicians and judges sanctioned that, too.



Again, your assertion is loaded with assumptions about the nature of land rights that not everyone agrees with. I know it may be shocking that not everyone agrees with leftist orthodoxy and has an opinion about it, but you will get by, I'm sure.

it's the law of the land, and it's been reviewed by scotus, so even though the living conscience of the western world disagrees with it, it's still the law and it's still constitutional.

your weak attempt to deflect while playing the race card is noted.

i'm never shocked by the weak minded.

del
02-18-2016, 05:02 PM
I think you need to look up the definition of the word "fact".

he should trade his thesaurus (contemplative sagacity lol) for one.

Ethereal
02-18-2016, 05:02 PM
Nope, national park

Oh, another federal museum that can never be lived or labored on by Americans. Swell.

Ethereal
02-18-2016, 05:03 PM
I think you need to look up the definition of the word "fact".

I'm pretty sure it won't say: Whatever the federal government says it is.

del
02-18-2016, 05:03 PM
I'm pretty sure it won't say: Whatever the federal government says it is.

you misspelled ethereal

Ethereal
02-18-2016, 05:04 PM
Did you not read any of my posts? The land that ended up under federal management is the land no one was using or wanted.

That's manifestly absurd. The Bundys clearly did want it.

Ethereal
02-18-2016, 05:05 PM
it's the law of the land, and it's been reviewed by scotus, so even though the living conscience of the western world disagrees with it, it's still the law and it's still constitutional.

And everyone knows the "law of the land" and "scotus" are infallible, and that they are the ultimate arbiters of what is "fact" and what is not. How could I have missed that?


your weak attempt to deflect while playing the race card is noted.

i'm never shocked by the weak minded.

Please, you're going to make me distraught again.

Safety
02-18-2016, 05:05 PM
it's the law of the land, and it's been reviewed by scotus, so even though the living conscience of the western world disagrees with it, it's still the law and it's still constitutional.

your weak attempt to deflect while playing the race card is noted.

i'm never shocked by the weak minded.

Now, you know the race card is only played in one direction. Remember it's 'murica for 'muricans.

Ethereal
02-18-2016, 05:06 PM
he should trade his thesaurus (contemplative sagacity lol) for one.

I'm pretty the dictionary does not define a "fact" as "whatever the US government says". Maybe the Democrat party uses different dictionaries than the rest of us.

Ethereal
02-18-2016, 05:07 PM
Now, you know the race card is only played in one direction. Remember it's 'murica for 'muricans.

How sad that you keep pretending like I'm guilty of some kind of inconsistency.

del
02-18-2016, 05:07 PM
And everyone knows the "law of the land" and "scotus" are infallible, and that they are the ultimate arbiters of what is "fact" and what is not. How could I have missed that?



Please, you're going to make me distraught again.

no, everyone knows that you're infallible- everyone else is wrong.

you seem to be laboring under the misapprehension that i give a fuck what you think, feel or do.

that's pretty funny

Ethereal
02-18-2016, 05:08 PM
you misspelled ethereal

No, I accurately represented the arguments being made by worshipers of the US government. Apparently, they think "facts" are determined by the US government and "might makes right".

Ethereal
02-18-2016, 05:10 PM
no, everyone knows that you're infallible- everyone else is wrong.

you seem to be laboring under the misapprehension that i give a $#@! what you think, feel or do.

that's pretty funny

Oh no! Del doesn't care about me. I'm, like, sooooo devastated right now. How will I manage to move on from this?

Matty
02-18-2016, 05:10 PM
it's the law of the land, and it's been reviewed by scotus, so even though the living conscience of the western world disagrees with it, it's still the law and it's still constitutional.

your weak attempt to deflect while playing the race card is noted.

i'm never shocked by the weak minded.


Since when do democrats obey the law of the land? Illegal immigration? Rioting? Burning down cities? Shitting on police cars?

Ethereal
02-18-2016, 05:12 PM
I'm sure if the US government said black was white, Democrats would believe that was a "fact", too.

Safety
02-18-2016, 05:12 PM
How sad that you keep pretending like I'm guilty of some kind of inconsistency.

To be honest, it wasn't being addressed towards you, but to the silence from the usual ones here who scream about it all the time whenever a "liberal" makes the opposite comparasion that you and pickle did.

Safety
02-18-2016, 05:13 PM
I'm sure if the US government said black was white, Democrats would believe that was a "fact", too.

Only when Rupert Murdoch says it about Ben Carson...

Matty
02-18-2016, 05:14 PM
How about you democrats arrest Al Sharpton for tax evasion instead of inviting him to the WH for din din? Then we might take you seriously?

del
02-18-2016, 05:16 PM
No, I accurately represented the arguments being made by worshipers of the US government. Apparently, they think "facts" are determined by the US government and "might makes right".

worshipers lol

would might making right be like snipers taking up positions to threaten people doing their job, or is that a misperception on my part caused by my worship of the government?

all of this is very confusing- thank god we have the clarity of your vision to see us through these troubling times.

del
02-18-2016, 05:17 PM
How about you democrats arrest Al Sharpton for tax evasion instead of inviting him to the WH for din din? Then we might take you seriously?

yes, because you taking me seriously will validate my life.

:rofl:

del
02-18-2016, 05:18 PM
How sad that you keep pretending like I'm guilty of some kind of inconsistency.

no, you're very consistent.

Matty
02-18-2016, 05:18 PM
yes, because you taking me seriously will validate my life.

:rofl:


Poor you! When you have your hypocrisy stuffed in your turkey you lay an egg!

Common Sense
02-18-2016, 05:19 PM
He was trying to be a Rambo, a hero. Not only did his actions needlessly escalate the situation, it put his fellow officers in added danger, too. But what do I know? It's not like I have hundreds of hours of tactical training and experience.

His actions??? Seriously? Was he the one trying to evade a roadblock?


We all know you're the expert...clearly.

I'd use the eyeroll emoticon, but I feel it is insufficient.

Crepitus
02-18-2016, 05:21 PM
I'm pretty sure it won't say: Whatever the federal government says it is.

Regardless of whether you think it's constitutional or not they do own the land. Fact.

domer76
02-18-2016, 05:21 PM
Give it a rest domer. Posters ask for links from you to back up your statements all the time and you call them lazy cause they won't do your job. Now you demand a link and get all uppity when they don't produce.

hypocrite domer, own it

This one has gone over your head. No surprises there.

Crepitus
02-18-2016, 05:22 PM
That's manifestly absurd. The Bundys clearly did want it.

A hundred years too late.

del
02-18-2016, 05:23 PM
Poor you! When you have your hypocrisy stuffed in your turkey you lay an egg!

try breathing into a paper bag, matty

Matty
02-18-2016, 05:25 PM
try breathing into a paper bag, matty

Can't do it. I'm eating my Hershey kisses!

hanger4
02-18-2016, 05:26 PM
This one has gone over your head. No surprises there.

^^^^ Eyes Wide Shut ^^^^

Matty
02-18-2016, 05:27 PM
Hey! Democrats! Let's see if there is an honest one among ya! Why is it important to punish the Bundy's and not Sharpton?

Ethereal
02-18-2016, 05:28 PM
To me, the major difference is some of the language that was used by the Oregon protestors and their insistence to show up in paramilitary gear. They looked and sounded like they wanted an armed conflict. I am all for people's rights to own guns and I am all for people's rights to protest. I'm even for civil disobedience. That is a far cry however from trying to instigate and armed conflict.

I never said they weren't belligerent or even obnoxious. But I cannot, as a classical liberal, prejudice a person's rights simply because they exercise them in a belligerent or obnoxious way. Even though OWS squatted on public property for months, created a massive nuisance and disturbance, cost taxpayers millions of dollars, and called for the abolition of capitalism, I still supported their activism and civil disobedience. In order for democracy to thrive, there needs to be robust protections and ample space for populist involvement to take place. That means, every once in while, fringe, obnoxious, and even radical elements will cause a disturbance or behave in a belligerent manner towards the establishment. But that is a price I'm willing to pay in order to maintain broad, robust protections for the masses of people living in America.

domer76
02-18-2016, 05:30 PM
^^^^ Eyes Wide Shut ^^^^

Still not getting it, I see. Give up while you only look dumb. It will get worse for you from here.

Ethereal
02-18-2016, 05:31 PM
Only when Rupert Murdoch says it about Ben Carson...

I don't follow.

Common Sense
02-18-2016, 05:31 PM
I never said they weren't belligerent or even obnoxious. But I cannot, as a classical liberal, prejudice a person's rights simply because they exercise them in a belligerent or obnoxious way. Even though OWS squatted on public property for months, created a massive nuisance and disturbance, cost taxpayers millions of dollars, and called for the abolition of capitalism, I still supported their activism and civil disobedience. In order for democracy to thrive, there needs to be robust protections and ample space for populist involvement to take place. That means, every once in while, fringe, obnoxious, and even radical elements will cause a disturbance or behave in a belligerent manner towards the establishment. But that is a price I'm willing to pay in order to maintain broad, robust protections for the masses of people living in America.

I supported OWS's right to protest and I support anyone's right to do so, but it goes beyond protest when you try to incite real violence. In my opinion that's what was going on in Oregon.

But I appreciate your above post.

Ethereal
02-18-2016, 05:33 PM
worshipers lol

would might making right be like snipers taking up positions to threaten people doing their job, or is that a misperception on my part caused by my worship of the government?

all of this is very confusing- thank god we have the clarity of your vision to see us through these troubling times.

If the US government says something is a fact, then it must be so. How could anyone argue otherwise?

Ethereal
02-18-2016, 05:38 PM
His actions??? Seriously? Was he the one trying to evade a roadblock?


We all know you're the expert...clearly.

I'd use the eyeroll emoticon, but I feel it is insufficient.

Nobody disputes the fact that Lavoy was being evasive. But the officer broke protocol and it caused a bad situation to get worse as a result. But that's okay because someone with zero seconds of training and experience in tactical situations says so.

Ethereal
02-18-2016, 05:39 PM
Regardless of whether you think it's constitutional or not they do own the land. Fact.

Right, just like it was a "fact" that slaves were property.

hanger4
02-18-2016, 05:40 PM
Still not getting it, I see. Give up while you only look dumb. It will get worse for you from here.

It's ok domer I get your hypocrisy.

You demand a link and whine when ya don't get it

and whine when someone demands a link of you.

Ethereal
02-18-2016, 05:40 PM
A hundred years too late.

More "might makes right" arguments that totally avoid the underlying moral, intellectual, and utilitarian principles at issue.

But what does that have to do with the tread topic, which is the hypocrisy of Democrats who support amnesty and welfare dependency?

Safety
02-18-2016, 05:42 PM
I don't follow.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/rupert-murdoch-black-president_us_5615c40be4b0fad1591acbb5

Crepitus
02-18-2016, 05:42 PM
Right, just like it was a "fact" that slaves were property.
At the time it was.

Safety
02-18-2016, 05:44 PM
More "might makes right" arguments that totally avoid the underlying moral, intellectual, and utilitarian principles at issue.

But what does that have to do with the tread topic, which is the hypocrisy of Democrats who support amnesty and welfare dependency?

Probably in the same location where someone says they don't recognize the federal government, while enjoying the half million SBA loan from the same federal government.

Ethereal
02-18-2016, 05:45 PM
I supported OWS's right to protest and I support anyone's right to do so, but it goes beyond protest when you try to incite real violence. In my opinion that's what was going on in Oregon.

But I appreciate your above post.

What happened in Oregon created only a tiny fraction of the nuisance and disturbance that OWS and BLM have. We cannot ignore the actual impacts the movements had on society when deciding whether or not they should be supported and even protected. But if the massive disruptions to public order that have been caused by OWS and BLM were generally tolerable, and I personally believe they were, then this minor disruption should easily pass muster. This is what "democracy" looks like, is common people being free to be somewhat rambunctious and disruptive when the political system stops representing their interests. How can democracy survive without it? How can liberalism prosper under the stultifying glare of rigid authoritarianism?

Ethereal
02-18-2016, 05:47 PM
At the time it was.

It wasn't a "fact" to people of conscious.

Ethereal
02-18-2016, 05:48 PM
Probably in the same location where someone says they don't recognize the federal government, while enjoying the half million SBA loan from the same federal government.

The Bundys paid taxes, so I'm not sure what you're trying to imply. Are the Bundys allowed to stop paying taxes on their income and on their business operations? Or are they just expected to pay taxes and never take advantage of appropriations thereof?

Safety
02-18-2016, 05:49 PM
It wasn't a "fact" to people of conscious.

They went to war and kicked consciousness into the other side.

Crepitus
02-18-2016, 05:49 PM
I'm pretty the dictionary does not define a "fact" as "whatever the US government says". Maybe the Democrat party uses different dictionaries than the rest of us.
A fact it the way thing are. the reality, the actuality. The word does not take alternatives into account, not how things might have been, or how things should be, or even if Ethereal thinks it it right and just, it only refers to how things are now.

Ethereal
02-18-2016, 05:50 PM
They went to war and kicked consciousness into the other side.

Not sure what your point is.

Crepitus
02-18-2016, 05:51 PM
How about you democrats arrest Al Sharpton for tax evasion instead of inviting him to the WH for din din? Then we might take you seriously?
I'd be good with that.

Matty
02-18-2016, 05:52 PM
Probably in the same location where someone says they don't recognize the federal government, while enjoying the half million SBA loan from the same federal government.


Why does Sharpton get a pass? Does federal law apply to him?

Crepitus
02-18-2016, 05:53 PM
Hey! Democrats! Let's see if there is an honest one among ya! Why is it important to punish the Bundy's and not Sharpton?
Sharpton should be punished as well.

Safety
02-18-2016, 05:53 PM
The Bundys paid taxes, so I'm not sure what you're trying to imply. Are the Bundys allowed to stop paying taxes on their income and on their business operations? Or are they just expected to pay taxes and never take advantage of appropriations thereof?

They paid taxes because they didn't want to go to prison. It's pretty hard to convince a hundred or so good old boys to fight for your cause by being a tax evader.

Safety
02-18-2016, 05:54 PM
Why does Sharpton get a pass? Does federal law apply to him?

Start a thread about him if that's what you want to talk about.

Tahuyaman
02-18-2016, 05:55 PM
Most Dems I know are laughing their ass-off ... there's just way too much material feeding late-night TV coming from Conservatives :pointlaugh:

I've never noticed that liberals laugh that much. More often than not, they are angry about something. Usually that's something which isn't their business.

Ethereal
02-18-2016, 05:55 PM
A fact it the way thing are. the reality, the actuality. The word does not take alternatives into account, not how things might have been, or how things should be, or even if Ethereal thinks it it right and just, it only refers to how things are now.

I know what a fact is. But concepts like "ownership" and "property" have definitions, too, and they are not dictated unilaterally to the world by the US government. The English language arose organically, not via the ordination of the state. I don't have to accept the federal government's "ownership" of landed "property" as a "fact" just because the US government claims to own it. They may be in possession of it, they may be enclosing it, they may be behaving as if they own it, but that doesn't mean their claims to ownership are legitimate. Is that so hard to understand? Or are mere discussions of the legitimacy of the government's actions also forbidden?

Matty
02-18-2016, 05:56 PM
Sharpton should be punished as well.


But he isn't is he? He dines at the WH at the taxpayers expense. There is the hypocrisy. Obama sends the Feds after the Bund'y's and feeds Sharpton. How do you explain that?

Crepitus
02-18-2016, 05:56 PM
It wasn't a "fact" to people of conscious.
No sir, it was indeed a fact that at the time slaves were property. It wasn't right, just, or moral but those things have no bearing on whether it was a fact or not..

Ethereal
02-18-2016, 05:56 PM
Sharpton should be punished as well.

Well, let me know when the Democrat machine goes after him like they did they Bundy family.

Crepitus
02-18-2016, 05:57 PM
But he isn't is he? He dines at the WH at the taxpayers expense. There is the hypocrisy. Obama sends the Feds after the Bund'y's and feeds Sharpton. How do you explain that?
I can't answer that, and I wish I could.

Ethereal
02-18-2016, 05:57 PM
They paid taxes because they didn't want to go to prison. It's pretty hard to convince a hundred or so good old boys to fight for your cause by being a tax evader.

So if they paid taxes, then how is it wrong for them to take advantage of a small business loan? They paid for it.

Matty
02-18-2016, 05:57 PM
Start a thread about him if that's what you want to talk about.


There is a thing called natural progression. Can you answer the question or just deflect?

Crepitus
02-18-2016, 05:58 PM
I know what a fact is. But concepts like "ownership" and "property" have definitions, too, and they are not dictated unilaterally to the world by the US government. The English language arose organically, not via the ordination of the state. I don't have to accept the federal government's "ownership" of landed "property" as a "fact" just because the US government claims to own it. They may be in possession of it, they may be enclosing it, they may be behaving as if they own it, but that doesn't mean their claims to ownership are legitimate. Is that so hard to understand? Or are mere discussions of the legitimacy of the government's actions also forbidden?:rollseyes:

Safety
02-18-2016, 05:58 PM
Not sure what your point is.

Sometimes consciousness needs to be beaten into people?

Matty
02-18-2016, 05:59 PM
I can't answer that, and I wish I could.


Now there is is an honest answer! Would you suspect it's because they are bestest buddies and Sharpton's lawbreaking is looked upon with favor?

Ethereal
02-18-2016, 05:59 PM
No sir, it was indeed a fact that at the time slaves were property. It wasn't right, just, or moral but those things have no bearing on whether it was a fact or not..

No, they were not "property" because you cannot "own" another person. Something cannot be "property" unless it is "owned" by someone, and it's self-evident that no one can "own" another person. Just because politicians, judges, and enforcers claim it was so, does not make it so.

Crepitus
02-18-2016, 06:00 PM
Now there is is an honest answer! Would you suspect it's because they are bestest buddies and Sharpton's lawbreaking is looked upon with favor?
I do not care to speculate, I only hope that he will be brought to heel soon.

Crepitus
02-18-2016, 06:01 PM
No, they were not "property" because you cannot "own" another person. Something cannot be "property" unless it is "owned" by someone, and it's self-evident that no one can "own" another person. Just because politicians, judges, and enforcers claim it was so, does not make it so.
Actually at the time you could indeed own another person.

Ethereal
02-18-2016, 06:01 PM
:rollseyes:

Wow, what a devastating rebuttal.

Matty
02-18-2016, 06:02 PM
I do not care to speculate, I only hope that he will be brought to heel soon.

Don't hold your breath. Free advice.

Ethereal
02-18-2016, 06:02 PM
Actually at the time you could indeed own another person.

You could claim to own them, and you could behave as if you did own them, but you did not, in fact, own them. In other words, might does NOT make right.

Safety
02-18-2016, 06:03 PM
There is a thing called natural progression. Can you answer the question or just deflect?

Deflection would be responding to your post which has nothing to do with the current discussion for two reasons...Al Sharpton is not the topic, and I have never mentioned whether or not I support or don't support his financial issues.

Anything else?

Common Sense
02-18-2016, 06:05 PM
Deflection would be responding to your post which has nothing to do with the current discussion for two reasons...Al Sharpton is not the topic, and I have never mentioned whether or not I support or don't support his financial issues.

Anything else?

Mexico!

Ethereal
02-18-2016, 06:05 PM
Deflection would be responding to your post which has nothing to do with the current discussion for two reasons...Al Sharpton is not the topic, and I have never mentioned whether or not I support or don't support his financial issues.

Anything else?

The topic of discussion is Democrat phoniness. Specifically, their support for amnesty and welfare dependency. What are your thoughts on that?

Safety
02-18-2016, 06:05 PM
You could claim to own them, and you could behave as if you did own them, but you did not, in fact, own them. In other words, might does NOT make right.

Yea....that's why slaves were able to be sold. The only way to know if you truly own something is the ability to sell it.

Safety
02-18-2016, 06:06 PM
The topic of discussion is Democrat phoniness. Specifically, their support for amnesty and welfare dependency. What are your thoughts on that?

I'm still waiting for the case to be made.

Ethereal
02-18-2016, 06:11 PM
One of the overarching themes of George Orwell's 1984 was the manipulation of language by the political class. No more was the manipulation of language more evident than in the ruling party's use of the slogan: WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, and IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

Of course, anyone reading the book knew that war was not peace, freedom was not slavery, and ignorance was not strength.

Yet when the US political class claims to "own" half the western US, some people have no problem accepting that as "fact". I wonder, are they the same type of people who thought war was peace and freedom slavery?

Matty
02-18-2016, 06:11 PM
Deflection would be responding to your post which has nothing to do with the current discussion for two reasons...Al Sharpton is not the topic, and I have never mentioned whether or not I support or don't support his financial issues.

Anything else?


It it is pertinent because 4.5 million dollars of owed income tax is a federal crime, that money belongs to we the people just as that land does! Now what? More deflection?

Ethereal
02-18-2016, 06:13 PM
I'm still waiting for the case to be made.

It's been made amply.

Amnesty for illegal immigrants is supporting and even encouraging lawlessness.

Ethereal
02-18-2016, 06:14 PM
Yea....that's why slaves were able to be sold. The only way to know if you truly own something is the ability to sell it.

So if someone takes your cellphone when you're not looking and sells it to someone, that means they, and not you, owned the cellphone.

Common Sense
02-18-2016, 06:14 PM
One of the overarching themes of George Orwell's 1984 was the manipulation of language by the political class. No more was the manipulation of language more evident than in the ruling party's use of the slogan: WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, and IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

Of course, anyone reading the book knew that war was not peace, freedom was not slavery, and ignorance was not strength.

Yet when the US political class claims to "own" half the western US, some people have no problem accepting that as "fact". I wonder, are they the same type of people who thought war was peace and freedom slavery?

It's not the political class who own the land. It's the country itself.

To imply that the Federal government managing wilderness is somehow Orwellian, is somewhat disingenuous.

domer76
02-18-2016, 06:14 PM
It's ok domer I get your hypocrisy.

You demand a link and whine when ya don't get it

and whine when someone demands a link of you.

Sigh. OK dimwit, to save you further embarrassment, I'll spell it out for you.

You see, it's this way. The original statement "if he was a different color" is absurd from the get go. There is no such thing as "if" in this case. He WASN'T a different color, so why try to argue a stupid premise "if" he was. You and the others don't know "if" from shit.

So, to counter absurdity with absurdity, the request to provide a link to validate the moronic premise. But you see, that went so fucking far over your head, you couldn't see it with a telescope.

Crepitus
02-18-2016, 06:15 PM
Wow, what a devastating rebuttal.

I don't know what else to say. Your obstinance has reduced me to mute incredulity.

Safety
02-18-2016, 06:15 PM
So if they paid taxes, then how is it wrong for them to take advantage of a small business loan? They paid for it.

I guess it would be like financing a house, then complaining about having to pay the bank.

Crepitus
02-18-2016, 06:16 PM
Don't hold your breath. Free advice.

Sadly it is a symptom of the world we live in. Know the right people or have enough money and you can get away with murder. Goes on on both sides of the aisle and I believe it is shameful.

Crepitus
02-18-2016, 06:17 PM
You could claim to own them, and you could behave as if you did own them, but you did not, in fact, own them. In other words, might does NOT make right.

Hi they did, indeed, own them.

Ethereal
02-18-2016, 06:18 PM
It's not the political class who own the land. It's the country itself.

The US government owns it, or so I've been told, and the US government is the political class's corporate agency.


To imply that the Federal government managing wilderness is somehow Orwellian, is somewhat disingenuous.

I'm saying their claim to "own" the land is Orwellian. It totally subverts the classical meaning of ownership. How can they "own" something that has existed independently of them for thousands of years?

Ethereal
02-18-2016, 06:19 PM
Hi they did, indeed, own them.

Only in the minds of the intellectually and morally bankrupt.