Bunkerville NV escalating.

[Manatee]

It is funny. The right doesn't do irony.

The point was one of observation. Bundy has built his world view off of lies. The tragedy is that anyone else would follow him around with guns protecting his delusions.

Sorry, but that's my definition of insanity.

 

[Destro]

Property LEGALLY belonging to the United States. The standard by which they acquire it is still Article 1, Section 8.

so the Mexicans didn't give up?

 

[jamil]

Just watched a funny clip from the daily show. They have video with Sean Hanity supporting Bundy in his "fight", and then they show video of Hanity condemning several other groups on other occasions for "deciding which laws to follow and which laws they can ignore". In another video Sean was telling an Occupy Wall Street protester that "You're camping on land that is owned by the government, they have every right to throw you out, it's GOVERNMENT land!"

And they had the clip showing the one "Militia man" who said their strategy was going to be to put all the women and children in the front lines so that "If those federal agents start to shoot, we'll have video to show the world that the U.S government is shooting women and children". Now, I can't be the only one who heard that and said "Huuhhhhhh?"

Anyway, I thought it was funny.

That's not helping to defend the claim that these millitia are terrorists.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Delusional.

Let's just say that I would likely accept the court's opinion before I would accept yours on this matter.

I wonder if Bundy would loan you his flag? He seems to have rejected his association with the USA.

You support constitutional interpretation divined from the blank spaces on the page just because a judge said so, and I'm delusional?

Learning how to understand the English language would help you tremendously in understanding the deficiency of your position.

 

[Manatee]

Indy: You express anger against the system we have in place today. But don't call me names because your anger colors all you see. Even Scalia said that no-one ought to be strict constructionist. But, I forget myself….you do not acknowledge the authority of the courts…..

I wonder when that rigidity was beaten into you? For no man who calls himself Christian lacks the empathy for the thoughts of others as you seem to.

 

[actaeon277]

Yes. We wouldn't want the Constitution treated as a contract between the governed and the government or anything like that.

 

[Manatee]

Which isn't the point with Bundy, is it Acteon? His father held no ancient and noble interest in the land prior to the 1947 and didn't begin ranching until the 1950's. He had no contract prior to the formation of the BLM. Thousands of other ranchers appear to deal with the BLM periodically without issue. The courts have determined for the government.

He rejects the authority of the US government. The majority of us do not. If he renounces his citizenship loud enough, he should be deported to the country of his choice.

I doubt Bundy is an honest man. I've seen carnival barkers with a better grasp on reality. If you all want to take up his cause, it is your prerogative. I won't. He's a cause of mayhem. Not a victim.

 

[actaeon277]

I made no reference to Bundy.
Bundy or no Bundy, I believe the Constitution is a contract.
There is a procedure to modify it, if necessary.

 

[Manatee]

However, the thread is about Bundy; not general observations on your general belief system.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I made no reference to Bundy.
Bundy or no Bundy, I believe the Constitution is a contract.
There is a procedure to modify it, if necessary.

Exactly. Some people can't get off the kool-aid long enough to see that they are on the receiving end of a bait and switch routine in which they are offered up the least sympathetic example from the .gov's PNG list in the effort to take attention off of the core issue and pin it firmly on the person of someone who doesn't have Reaganesque appeal to the television audience. One such person here is so fixated on the person of Bundy that he can't see the complete absence of constitutional authority for much of anything the federal government is doing in the situation.

 

[IndyDave1776]

However, the thread is about Bundy; not general observations on your general belief system.

That's the stupidest thing I have read all day--even below the already low enough standard you generally set. You have determined on your own that the discussion must turn on the person of Bundy. Others of us can see that the federal treatment of Bundy, whether he is right, wrong, or somewhere in between, is well outside the boundaries within which the federal government belongs, which is a threat to every breathing citizen. It defies my understanding that you seem unable to understand the implications of unlimited government or that the Constitution was deliberately engineered to provide a limited government subservient to the people, not a master of the people.

 

[Manatee]

Quit drinking. Your liver is bigger than your brains, grunt.

 

[jamil]

Belief ultimately impacts action, so it is with a jaundiced eye that look upon the activities of both of these men.

You trying to say something here? I don't care what Reid or Bundy say they believe. I care what they do. Reid is a liar. Bundy is a liar. The BLM are thugs. Not much else to say about the way they each acted.

 

[aaron580]

Quit drinking. Your liver is bigger than your brains, grunt.

Statements like this remove any credibility you could have had in the past, present, and future.

 

[Manatee]

Ill take some whiskey in that coffee, hold the coffee

I can understand why you would be sensitive to drinking comments. Perhaps it's time to stop?

 

[aaron580]

I can understand why you would be sensitive to drinking comments. Perhaps it's time to stop?

We appear to be moving off Bundy.


This thread has jumped the shark anyway.


Bye

It appears you are making this thread "jump shark" currently, you just moved off bundy. And I actually mean personal insults against somebody you do not know other than trying to convince them you are an online badass. Case in point

You are making it personal. Dickishness is the first sign you've lost the argument.

Your own words here...sounds like you lost an argument

 

[Manatee]

Statements like this remove any credibility you could have had in the past, present, and future.

And this is not a value judgement that you made? It is your first comment on the thread. So, physician, heal thyself.

 

[Manatee]

There is probably not one of us who is pleased with the functioning of our government in some way. The question is: what to do about it? For many, they've given up and don't participate in the election process. Others participate with little hope that things will get better. Now, some have taken up arms against the government.

My personal reaction to this is that I wouldn't support Bundy because I believe him to be a fraud and a liar. Standing alongside him might give the government pause…but it also potentially sends the wrong message: armed citizens will fight stupid. I'm not stupid, and I don't think you are.

This entire constitutional discussion is really irrelevant. Does Bundy DESERVE our support? I say no, because his cause is not righteous. So, we can dissect the provisions of the constitution as it relates to government stewardship over land, but that really isn't the argument. If it was, then it would have been brought up sometime in the last 50 years as a major election issue or SCOTUS case. It is only an issue because of Bundy and Bundy is not deserving of any support.

That's it in a nutshell. If you want to support Bundy because you hate the government, go ahead. I think it's idiotic, but go ahead.

 

[Sirindu]

It's going nowhere. IF people show up, and that's a big if, the feds will simply wait and starve them out.

Don't get me wrong, I would love to see a group of people united, standing against what they believe to be wrong. It could be a wake up call to our government. High hopes and all, I know...

Interesting to read this after all that has happened a week later. No offence meant against you, Rookie. I've been in the same boat before. It's nice to be surprised sometimes.

 

[aaron580]

And this is not a value judgement that you made? It is your first comment on the thread. So, physician, heal thyself.

Its an observation about the unneeded and non related criticisms you were throwing around. If you are going to argue, do it right. That goes for everybody. Doesn't matter if it is my first comment or not, your style negated any credibility.