Lords of Death Forums Lords of Death Forums LoD General Discussion Shits gettin real yo

Haha, Vermi, you are SO full of shit.

What is truly terrifying about this entire discussion is that it really goes to the core about what is dysfunctional about our government. You are not making arguments. You simply repeat a belief and then choose to ignore facts that contradict that belief. I am a Republican (an actual Republican, not a RINO Tea Partier), and it terrifies me to see these Tea Party people. You simply choose to ignore reality sometimes. You just repeat slogans (which you don't fully understand) and get just enough facts to justify your position. You then conveniently ignore everything else. Climate change? A lie. Evolution? A lie. Obama an American citizen? A lie. Debit ceiling related to spending? Of course! What's even more ridiculous, is that at the end of the day you see yourselves as some sort of "freedom fighters" or "civil rights leaders. Nevermind the fact that people spewing your same type of bullshit only argue "state's rights" or abusive LEOs when it conveniently coincides with their political ideology. You don't support limited government, you support government that does exactly as you want it to do. But, back to the topic:

Here is a snippet from an AP article on the subject:

"The dispute between Bundy and federal land managers began in 1993 when he stopped paying monthly fees of about $1.35 per cow-calf pair to graze public lands that are also home to imperiled animals such as the Mojave Desert tortoise. The government also claims Bundy has ignored cancellation of his grazing leases and defied federal court orders to remove his cattle.

"We won the battle," said Ammon Bundy, one of the rancher's sons.

The bureau said Cliven Bundy still owes taxpayers more than $1 million, which includes both grazing fees and penalties, and that it would work to resolve the matter administratively and through the court system."

So, let's defuse some of the bullshit you've all been spewing. That is, of course, if you even choose to believe an AP article. After all, you Tea Partiers are victims of the big, meanie left wing media all the time. *pause to wipe a tear away on your behalf*:

This isn't private property. They are seizing his cattle because he refused to pay taxes. He attempted to defy the government's order through the use of force.

Everything else you've argued is pretty much a "NOT UH!"

The guy blocks traffic with his ATV. Vermi response: NUT UH!
Guy advances on police officers in what can ONLY be described as a violent, aggressive manner. Vermi response: NUT UH!
Guy refuses to obey lawful orders to back away: NUT UH!

And you, and those taking your position, haven't even articulated a point. If you respond to this -- and I know you will -- I am challenging you to articulate an actual argument. Most far right-wing, Tea Party, crazy hill billy fucks only think they make sense because they refuse to ever articulate an actual position that can be scrutinized and discussed.

For example, thus far your entire position amounts to: (1) cops used too much force/acted too aggressively. You pretend to acknowledge that the LEOs had a lawful right to be there, or that the protesters were interfering with that right/ignoring their lawful orders to back away. But you're only paying lipservice. Because you then take their use of force completely out of context and ignore those crucial facts (see your ridiculous comparisons to traffic stops).

If that's your only argument, get the fuck out of town son. You can see whatever you want to see on that video, any jury I've ever seen would convict his ass in ten minutes. His only chance would be to get a jury packed with crazy Tea Partiers that believe the government only has the authority to act when it does exactly as they want it to do.

So I challenge you Vermi, articulate a position. (1) Did the LEO's have a right to be at the location (where the video was shot?); (2) Did the LEO have the lawful right to remove those cattle?; (3) If they did have a lawful right to remove those cattle, did the ranchers have any lawful right to interfere?; (4) Assuming the ranchers do not have the lawful right to interfere with the execution of a lawful court order, how -- in your view -- should the LEOs respond when the ranchers begin physically resisting execution of that court order?; (5) Assuming the ranchers ignore the LEOs commands to not interfere with the execution of the court order, how can the LEOs respond? When is use of force justified? For example, when hillbilly fuck face blocks traffic with his ATV -- how can LEOs respond? Ask him to move it? When he refuses, do they just have to stand there? Do you even acknowledge that this guy was tasered immediately after driving his ATV at LEOs, blocking traffic, then refusing to back away?

I'm double dog daring you to answer those questions. I know you're going to try, and I cannot wait to see the mental gymnastics...

"Uh... uh, uh... well, no, he didn't drive his ATV at them... he uh... drove it near them. And immediately after driving his ATV at LEOs, he exercised his right to free speech! He wasn't threatening them.. he was just clenching his fists, yelling, and walking at them in a show of peace... Yea... that's the ticket... so even though he drove his ATV at them, blocked traffic, he used his insta-cast shield, "FREE SPEECH RIGHTS!" It's totally immune to logic, the law, or the responsibility of acting like an adult. That makes it all legit... yea... I got this logic thing down bro.

And let me ask you something else, if this had been the Occupy Wall Street movement... and they ignored a lawful court order and were blocking the Brooklyn Bridge. Would you be screaming and crying about unlawful use of force when the cops tasered them for refusing to disperse?

Let's say it was a bunch of Black Panthers, and they drove an ATV at a cop car, then acted like that guy did... would you be screaming about civil rights when the cops took him down?

Or let's say ICE gets a court order to deport a 100 illegal immigrants. As the bus is leaving, Cesar Fucking Chavez drives an ATV and blocks the bus. He then acts like that guy did. Are you going to tell me you would have jumped to his defense?

I'm betting you would have laughed your ass off; and that none of you right wingers would have shed a tear for them. But when it's a rancher that owes one million in taxes -- holy shit! This guy's rights are being violated!

Yes.

And what exactly scares you about libertarians? "Tea baggers" are really a split from the Republican Party, your party, some identify as libertarians but many are ignorant as fuck on libertarian policies. There are dumbass fucks who dont know shit in every party. What specific policies and positions do you disagree with? Its pretty clear to me that the two party system is broken and rigged. Even claiming a party is pretty stupid these days I think. Most people believe in roughly the same shit, social issues are probably the biggest point of contention.

16,000 public-lands ranchers pay the same fees Bundy avoids. If you threaten law enforcement officials with violence, you don't get to pull the victim card if you get your ass kicked.

Vermi, I'd be on your side if the Bandy family had a valid point why they should not pay grazing fees. I'm not going to waste my time defending a guy so he can earn more profit off of public lands and neither should you.

Pretty much. As soon as there is a lawful court order, you can litigate your grievances in the court system. Don't use force, then bitch and cry when force is used against you.

Think it had to do with state versus federal jurisdiction, the fact his family had been doing this since before the BLM existed and probably contention with the fact that government taxes the air, water, land, everything these days.

Look up the stats on the fed buying up state lands and repurposing them. If you think its cool for the fed to do this even though the constitution only allowed for an area the size of DC alright. Whats the point of having states then?

I actually agree with many of their policies, and I think we share a lot of similar views G. I think the fanaticism and resistance to alternative points of view is what terrifies me about some in the TP. Those traits are poison to a "democracy."

The BLM have been in function since 1787, signed by George Washington. If you want to follow the finders keepers law, then you should have no problem giving this land back to Mexico, or the Native American Indians before them.

Agreed, i think we have forgotten about the "constitutional" part in; consitutional democratic republic though. Thats what i mean by "rigged," those in power play by a different set of rules. I think what you said could be a blanket statement about the two parties in power and to all parties really. Thats why i would identify as libertarian simply because they more closely align with my views, not all the time though.

If you are all for government buying up public state lands and doing whatever they want with them, fine. We can go all the way back to the settlers before a central government and just say that, barring the slaughter of Indians, this land, all of it belonged to the people first.