Tiberius Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 Who is the girl in white? Wa Wa what??? Watch that tv show, it's very funny! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 Wa Wa what??? Watch that tv show, it's very funny! Why does a US ambassador get offed every episode?? Sorry man but you are NEVER going to live that one down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 Wa Wa what??? Watch that tv show, it's very funny! You are still absolutely wrong regarding who brought in the snipers. All this periphery crap is not going to let you gloss over that. Why don't you admit it? As for you Baskin, you knowingly lied to us. You should have learned your lesson from the past but obviously are not capable of doing so. Why does a US ambassador get offed every episode?? Sorry man but you are NEVER going to live that one down. You're doing your part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 You are still absolutely wrong regarding who brought in the snipers. All this periphery crap is not going to let you gloss over that. Why don't you admit it? no, there were Bundy snipers there. B word Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 no, there were Bundy snipers there. B word It's obvious you can't prove your assertion so you have to resort to calling me names. Show me the proof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkington Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 I've seen the video in which he's talking about... not sure if they had sniper rifles though, I think it was more like a hunting rifle, and he just happened to be sitting on an overpass. (I know nothing of guns, though) I have a feeling the argument is over language and not over the people who were there. This is the guy who I was thinking of when mentioned: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 If you find yourself on the defending end of anything related to Bundy, it's not where you want to be. Sorta like the Obama loyalists that are on the defending end of the deserter, disparaging the credibility of the truly honorable soldiers that served along side Bergdahl and dismissing concerns that the Taliban dudes that were released weren't really that bad. It's a losing hand. It's time to fold and forget about Bundy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 If you find yourself on the defending end of anything related to Bundy, it's not where you want to be. Sorta like the Obama loyalists that are on the defending end of the deserter, disparaging the credibility of the truly honorable soldiers that served along side Bergdahl and dismissing concerns that the Taliban dudes that were released weren't really that bad. It's a losing hand. It's time to fold and forget about Bundy. Is anyone defending Bundy? I recall maybe two posters. 3rd wasn't one of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 Is anyone defending Bundy? I recall maybe two posters. 3rd wasn't one of them. I won't speak for anyone else, but my position was never in defense of Bundy; but rather in opposition to what I believe to be federal overreach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 Is anyone defending Bundy? I recall maybe two posters. 3rd wasn't one of them. If you find yourself on the defending end of anything related to Bundy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 If you find yourself on the defending end of anything related to Bundy And why is that, exactly? I'm assuming you'll start with the assumption that this was not federal overreach then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 You can support the principle of resisting federal over-reach without supporting the views of the man being over-reached against. What strange world do you live in, in which this isn't an option? I agreed with TYTT 's statement back in April, and I agree again I won't speak for anyone else, but my position was never in defense of Bundy; but rather in opposition to what I believe to be federal overreach. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 anything related Well, that's horseshit. I defend his right to file court documents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 And why is that, exactly? I'm assuming you'll start with the assumption that this was not federal overreach then? I agree to an extent that the accusation of overreach is a valid discussion to be had. The federal government could have handled this issue with more tact, but let's not forget, that under current law, and we are a country of laws, he was willfully disobeying them. But that's not what is being discussed now, and I'm speaking more of the optics of the matter. It's clear that this Bundy is a racist, he's a social pariah and it is also clear that a number of wacko extremist right-wing anti-government kooks have been drawn to his ranch. So in regards to optics, anything dealing with anything that can be construed or misconstrued as a defense for anything related to Bundy is a political loser. So, in regards to substance, I'm sure there are some valid points, but that isn't really so much as to what I was referring to. Also as a side note, I read tons of articles from various sites and below they have the posts from the readers. It's funny watching these mouth-breathing lefty lemmings deflect and obfuscate what the articles pertain to, which often has to do with some level of incompetence with how all Tea party members are now part of the Bundy Ranch and these two extremist nutjobs from Nevada. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 I agree to an extent that the accusation of overreach is a valid discussion to be had. The federal government could have handled this issue with more tact, but let's not forget, that under current law, and we are a country of laws, he was willfully disobeying them. All law is subject to Constitutional rigor, and any law unConstitutional is invalid. Further, law is not synonymous with just law, and where the law is unjust, citizens living under it have the duty to oppose it, should they wish to remain free. But that's not what is being discussed now, and I'm speaking more of the optics of the matter. It's clear that this Bundy is a racist, he's a social pariah and it is also clear that a number of wacko extremist right-wing anti-government kooks have been drawn to his ranch. So in regards to optics, anything dealing with anything that can be construed or misconstrued as a defense for anything related to Bundy is a political loser. I don't disagree, but I also don't want our leadership walking away from what may be right simply because it is politically difficult; else, what have they done to deserve to lead? So, in regards to substance, I'm sure there are some valid points, but that isn't really so much as to what I was referring to Fair. Also as a side note, I read tons of articles from various sites and below they have the posts from the readers. It's funny watching these mouth-breathing lefty lemmings deflect and obfuscate what the articles pertain to, which often has to do with some level of incompetence with how all Tea party members are now part of the Bundy Ranch and these two extremist nutjobs from Nevada. Alinsky. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 This thread got revived when Baskin purposely posted a lie that two of Bundy's supporters shot two cops and a civilian. In reality the two people had been thrown off Bundy's ranch because the one had a criminal record and they both had radical views. These people were not in any way embraced by Bundy or his supporters. So then Gator had to chime in and stated that Bundy had snipers there. In reality it was the federal government that had snipers there. I'm not here defending Bundy, but I am here defending the truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 All law is subject to Constitutional rigor, and any law unConstitutional is invalid. Further, law is not synonymous with just law, and where the law is unjust, citizens living under it have the duty to oppose it, should they wish to remain free. I don't disagree, but I also don't want our leadership walking away from what may be right simply because it is politically difficult; else, what have they done to deserve to lead? Fair. Alinsky. I am certainly no constitutional expert, so I will refrain from opining any further in regards to the central issue of Bundy. But as you know, Bundy's original cause has now been hijacked by two things, one of which is his own undoing (the racism remark) and the other which is the attraction of the anti-government types to his ranch who have brought on plenty of negative press. It's unfortunate that this happened, because it essentially discredited in the public eye anything related to Bundy and his original cause. Now his cause isn't so much about the property, but now it's morphed into an anti-government movement. I don't think we disagree on all that much in regards to this topic. This thread got revived when Baskin purposely posted a lie that two of Bundy's supporters shot two cops and a civilian. In reality the two people had been thrown off Bundy's ranch because the one had a criminal record and they both had radical views. These people were not in any way embraced by Bundy or his supporters. So then Gator had to chime in and stated that Bundy had snipers there. In reality it was the federal government that had snipers there. I'm not here defending Bundy, but I am here defending the truth. I understand 3rd, but there are way too many unknowns and the details surrounding this issue that are awfully murky. There is very little doubt that many of those individuals that are supporters of the Bundy Ranch hold some pretty radical views that are well out of the mainstream. I mean seriously, the difference between these two nut job murderers and some of the people that are on this ranch is most likely just a higher stratum of extremism. That's not to say that they shared the same sick thoughts, just that they were operating on a wildly variant view of how to deal with the government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 If you find yourself on the defending end of anything related to Bundy, it's not where you want to be. The only people talking about Bundy are the tools who realize their president is in the schitcan and who need to take the focus off our current role in the world as leaders of incompetence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 So he was trespassing and when the government after repeated warnings finally acted a gun toting mob showed up to assert mob rule. They threatened armed resistance, wanted to use women and children as human shields and then found themselves to be right wing media stars until they opened their mouths about bringing back slavery. And later, two people that were at the stand off went out and murdered two cops Is that about it? The only people talking about Bundy are the tools who realize their president is in the schitcan and who need to take the focus off our current role in the world as leaders of incompetence. Is that way Hannity was all over this people with praise? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 So he was trespassing and when the government after repeated warnings finally acted a gun toting mob showed up to assert mob rule. They threatened armed resistance, wanted to use women and children as human shields and then found themselves to be right wing media stars until they opened their mouths about bringing back slavery. And later, two people that were at the stand off went out and murdered two cops Is that about it? See what I mean, Magox? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts