I was thinking too... is it hypocritical to get upset over this deadbeat rancher not paying his bills, and at the same time, roll your eyes when morons like tLiar and jdilco complain about "illegals" and poor welfare recipients who don't work?

I don't think so... for one thing, I don't think anyone on the left ever condoned cheating on welfare, or opposed prosecuting unemployment benefits/welfare cheats. But support for this rancher cheating on his bills is pretty widespread on the right, from what I can see.

another thing... no one on the left is saying we should do away with federal grazing rights on public lands because of this, yet when the occasional welfare cheat is uncovered it's grounds for gutting the program, cutting food stamps, etc. etc.

byco42 said:

Bundy has no legal case, not because of the law qua law, but because the BLM changed it on him. If you read the link I offered, you'd see why he, or anyone, might object.



THIS is another whacko in this scenario: “We can’t have an American people that violate the law and just walk away from it,” Mr. Reid told Reno TV station KRNV. “So it’s not over.”

Click to expand...

he was entitled to the due process of law. if the law was changed in a way that was unconstitutional... he certainly had a chance to make his case.

the article you cited was pretty freaking stupid as well. they admit he has no legal leg to stand on. end of story right there. no need to dump gasoline on this smoldering issue to attempt to spark something of interest.

the people defending this deadbeat don't seem to arrive at their understanding of the situation by knowing their history... they've twisted the story so you have this upstanding patriot rancher who was just doing what his family had been doing for generations when the big bad government arbitrarily changed some obscure rule to screw him (and only him) and immediately sent in a bunch of armed troops to enforce it.

yeah right. he tried to avoid paying his debts since 1993... and only now, when they are prepared to enforce them at gunpoint (since he's apparently ignored decades of bills, a formal complaint, subpoenas, and a court-ordered injunction) he's going to squawk about it.

screw him, and his stupid family.

also pretty transparent how the Conservative media is ranting about "illegals" in a number of contexts here... dogwhistles to get you and tLiar all angried up. Well... it's transparent to me at least... not to you guys.

this obviously has nothing to do with illegal immigration, and despite what the article you posted claimed, the federal government already dedicates substantial resources to policing the border.

jeez... a quick glance at the wikipedia page shows that US Customs and Border protection has a budget of almost $13 billion; "Over 21,370 Border Patrol Agents protect and patrol 1,900 miles (3,100 km) of border with Mexico..." They think they've sent more than 21,000 agents against this guy and spent over $13 billion on the operation? You think this is a valid news source? How stupid can you be?

michchamp said:

...
this obviously has nothing to do with illegal immigration, and despite what the article you posted claimed, the federal government already dedicates substantial resources to policing the border.

jeez... a quick glance at the wikipedia page shows that US Customs and Border protection has a budget of almost $13 billion; "Over 21,370 Border Patrol Agents protect and patrol 1,900 miles (3,100 km) of border with Mexico..." They think they've sent more than 21,000 agents against this guy and spent over $13 billion on the operation? You think this is a valid news source? How stupid can you be?

Click to expand...

"Durrrr.... hurrrr hurrr... ain't that right, Byco? That just makes me all upset."

michchamp said:

I was thinking too... is it hypocritical to get upset over this deadbeat rancher not paying his bills, and at the same time, roll your eyes when morons like tLiar and jdilco complain about "illegals" and poor welfare recipients who don't work?

I don't think so... for one thing, I don't think anyone on the left ever condoned cheating on welfare, or opposed prosecuting unemployment benefits/welfare cheats. But support for this rancher cheating on his bills is pretty widespread on the right, from what I can see.

another thing... no one on the left is saying we should do away with federal grazing rights on public lands because of this, yet when the occasional welfare cheat is uncovered it's grounds for gutting the program, cutting food stamps, etc. etc.

Click to expand...

my point was that we have an administration who picks what laws/agreements they want to enforce...
what people to target, changing laws without legal authority.

tsmith7559 said:

my point was that we have an administration who picks what laws/agreements they want to enforce...
what people to target, changing laws without legal authority.

Click to expand...

And you have a group on the right that picks and chooses what to support and to bitch about. They complained about Obama using drones in Libya, where not a single boot was on the ground, but screamed at anyone who ever questioned sending 1000's to their deaths in Iraq.

So don't lecture anyone else about cherry picking shit, you deadbeat welsher.

tsmith7559 said:

my point was that we have an administration who picks what laws/agreements they want to enforce...
what people to target, changing laws without legal authority.

Click to expand...

And beyond what thumb responded...how is that different from any administration, of either political party?

tsmith7559 said:

my point was that we have an administration who picks what laws/agreements they want to enforce...
what people to target, changing laws without legal authority.

Click to expand...

and as per usual, your point is completely irrelevant, and factually wrong.
(link, another link and it's easy to find more that aren't Fox News or whatever stupid right wing blogs you morons are reading about this issue)

Conservatives are dumb for picking this battle anyway. How the hell does anyone benefit by letting deadbeats like this guy avoid paying their debts?

morons wanting to take up arms to defend this guys "rights" need their heads examined.

Wait... so thumb is ok with using military force as long as it is via drones???

I'm for drones, just shocked that thumb is pro any type of military action that has killed innocent victims, or supposed innocent as sometimes it is difficult to know as demonstrated by the women and children who have killed members of our armed forces so sometimes I think a few supposedly innocent victims may not have been so innocent

I think the lesson here is that government is not reason. Does anyone dispute that opinion? The people in the government have all the same qualities and faults of us all, but the institution itself is a soulless beast that devours, dictates and delegates in the name of self-preservation.

The funniest part about all this is how Libs point fingers at this guy for his stupid comments yet find Al Sheraton, Jessie Jackson, and Nancy Pelosi to be people who should be idolized.

Oh pipe down, just busting chops a little. If you got your panties twisted maybe you should rethink why you did take the comment so seriously when it wasn't really an attack on you. (directed to those who did take offense, if you didn't then disregard)

byco42 said:

I think the lesson here is that government is not reason. Does anyone dispute that opinion? The people in the government have all the same qualities and faults of us all, but the institution itself is a soulless beast that devours, dictates and delegates in the name of self-preservation.

Click to expand...

what? the government backed down to avoid further bloodshed, and left this deadbeat and his racist militia buddies standing around the desert holding their guns. I think it's clear what side reason was on.

there are a lot of people who can complain about the heavy hand of government... this clown is not one of them.

I think the lesson here is that whenever more moderate or "normal" Republicans side with the crazies, they end up looking stupid. Another lesson could be whenever Fox News & the Right tries to find a hero, hilarity ensues (see, e.g. Sarah Palin, Joe the Plumber, that moron opposing the "Ground Zero Mosque")

michchamp said:

and as per usual, your point is completely irrelevant, and factually wrong.
(link, another link and it's easy to find more that aren't Fox News or whatever stupid right wing blogs you morons are reading about this issue)

Conservatives are dumb for picking this battle anyway. How the hell does anyone benefit by letting deadbeats like this guy avoid paying their debts?

morons wanting to take up arms to defend this guys "rights" need their heads examined.

Click to expand...

talking about irrelevent, where did
i bring up deportation rates?

try aca, dream act, doma, yucca mtn, which inclues reid...for starters

zyxt9 said:

Wait... so thumb is ok with using military force as long as it is via drones???

I'm for drones, just shocked that thumb is pro any type of military action that has killed innocent victims, or supposed innocent as sometimes it is difficult to know as demonstrated by the women and children who have killed members of our armed forces so sometimes I think a few supposedly innocent victims may not have been so innocent

Click to expand...

Thumb, Champ and maybe a few others are for military action if it involves taking out American Conservatives, aka domestic terrorists. I'm sure Harry Reid starred in their wet dreams last night.

jwlcosu said:

Thumb, Champ and maybe a few others are for military action if it involves taking out American Conservatives...

Click to expand...

the ends justify the means in this case!

I think we should double down on our economic strategy. Do the near term stuff we've talked about, but also establish a long-term plan to lessen Europe dependence on Russian gas. After they back down on Crimea, do the long-term stuff anyway.

zyxt9 said:

Wait... so thumb is ok with using military force as long as it is via drones???

I'm for drones, just shocked that thumb is pro any type of military action that has killed innocent victims, or supposed innocent as sometimes it is difficult to know as demonstrated by the women and children who have killed members of our armed forces so sometimes I think a few supposedly innocent victims may not have been so innocent

Click to expand...

Can you show me where I said I was okay with anything?

michchamp said:

the ends justify the means in this case!

Click to expand...

I have a rough time accepting that the end ever justifies the means. Rationalize maybe, but justify - not for me.

KAWDUP said:

I have a rough time accepting that the end ever justifies the means. Rationalize maybe, but justify - not for me.

Click to expand...

Not to derail this thread, but wouldn't you say that about the Catholic tenants?

You give up a lot, all for the reward at the end. Is that not the ultimate example of ends justifying the means?

Thumb said:

Not to derail this thread, but wouldn't you say that about the Catholic tenants?

You give up a lot, all for the reward at the end. Is that not the ultimate example of ends justifying the means?

Click to expand...

Not sure if the end itself is doing the justifying, or if there are other reasons to justify it. For me the end in this case is a nice happenstance - I don't use it to justify why I am a Christian.

. . . at least I hope I don't.

Thumb said:

And you have a group on the right that picks and chooses what to support and to bitch about. They complained about Obama using drones in Libya, where not a single boot was on the ground, but screamed at anyone who ever questioned sending 1000's to their deaths in Iraq.

So don't lecture anyone else about cherry picking shit, you deadbeat welsher.

Click to expand...

This is essentially saying you are okay with drones being used. You are complaining about the people who complained about their use. That means you support the person who okayed their use and thereby okay with their use. It is a negative times a negative equals a positive type of thing.

If you are against the use of drones, you would not have been complaining about the people who argued against their use.

Personally, I was all for their use in Libya. I'm not even opposed to their use by US police forces when following people trying to evade the police by driving at 100+mph and likely killing innocent people. Follow them with a drone (helicopters are too visible and people still try to run from them, the drones are hard to see or hear) and then surround them when they have stopped. I'd even support the police using their helicopters like an air combat team, repelling down and taking down the bad guys, after the drones have pinpointed their end location.

But that's me, and I'm ok with it because I don't break the law or run from the police. I'm sure others will condemn what I've said as further erosion of one's freedom and such, but I find criminal behavior to be my biggest threat to my freedoms due to their greater potential to kill me and those I care about either on purpose or on accident / collaterally.