Cliven Bundy

[broncofan]

I'm sorry you're so naive that you just realized that when a person flouts court orders over a twenty year period of time and there is a 16 year old permanent injunction against his use of federal land, that they might be confronted by armed federal agents. They had a right to seize his cattle. In fact if anything is embarrassing it's that the federal government ended up backing down because they did not want to use enough force to prevent continued violations.

He may be a 70 year old man, but you put a gun in his hands and he's as dangerous as any other person with a gun who doesn't respect laws and violates court orders. It's amazing to me that anyone would expect the federal government to continue to allow violations of federal regulations. Or to allow someone to ignore a permanent injunction against land use and continue to use the land illegally. Eventually force needs to be used.

It's too bad that your heroes showed what they're all about.

[kittyKaiti]

I'm sorry you're so naive that you just realized that when a person flouts court orders over a twenty year period of time and there is a 16 year old permanent injunction against his use of federal land, that they might be confronted by armed federal agents. They had a right to seize his cattle. In fact if anything is embarrassing it's that the federal government ended up backing down because they did not want to use enough force to prevent continued violations.

He may be a 70 year old man, but you put a gun in his hands and he's as dangerous as any other person with a gun who doesn't respect laws and violates court orders. It's amazing to me that anyone would expect the federal government to continue to allow violations of federal regulations. Or to allow someone to ignore a permanent injunction against land use and continue to use the land illegally. Eventually force needs to be used.

It's too bad that your heroes showed what they're all about.

Once again, you are ignoring the facts of the situation. They have sent in less force on multiple potentially armed people for worse offenses. It was a gross display of government use of violent force in a minor issue. They could have sent in a dozen officers to knock on his door, conduct a typical warranted raid, like any other situation and arrested him.

Instead they put snipers all around his property and sent in 200 feds with combat rifles. This was a nothing issue that could have been dealt with in a simple, easy and undramatic manner.

Now you try to blame the militia and Oath Keepers groups for being "domestic terrorists" and condemn their reaction to an army of feds threatening overwhelming violent force against a senior citizen.

[broncofan]

I am not sure whether violating federal land use regulations are incarcerable offenses so arresting him doesn't achieve the purpose of the injunction as well as seizing his cattle does. When the courts held that he was violating the regulations they ordered him to pay for past violations. But an injunction is forward looking. It doesn't punish him for past actions but says, "what we've already punished you for doing needs to stop."

What kind of government would we have if it couldn't even enforce an injunction? A completely toothless government. This may surprise you but law enforcement officers carry guns. When they enforce laws they also have those guns with them. You say there were a lot of officers and a lot of guns? Well, the man is still alive, and still ignorant. I don't know why officers of the law have to deal with a continuing series of violations with kid gloves. Anyhow, it doesn't matter. Nobody in his family was shot however many guns were present. His legal arguments had no basis. And the government had a right to seize his cattle.

[kittyKaiti]

I am not sure whether violating federal land use regulations are incarcerable offenses so arresting him doesn't achieve the purpose of the injunction as well as seizing his cattle does. When the courts held that he was violating the regulations they ordered him to pay for past violations. But an injunction is forward looking. It doesn't punish him for past actions but says, "what we've already punished you for doing needs to stop."

What kind of government would we have if it couldn't even enforce an injunction? A completely toothless government. This may surprise you but law enforcement officers carry guns. When they enforce laws they also have those guns with them. You say there were a lot of officers and a lot of guns? Well, the man is still alive, and still ignorant. I don't know why officers of the law have to deal with a continuing series of violations with kid gloves. Anyhow, it doesn't matter. Nobody in his family was shot however many guns were present. His legal arguments had no basis. And the government had a right to seize his cattle.

Don't try to be a condescending dick.

[kittyKaiti]

Also this:

New York Times Gets Blown The Fuck Out; Caught Falsifying and Editing Footage

American mainstream media is at it again. Editing footage and displaying to the world in a manner to make statements appear biased to support the federal government agenda.



The real video of Cliven Bundy discussing federal government bureaucracy and its effects on hardworking Americans. (Including the section about African Americans) And the cut off ending about hardworking Mexican immigrants.

[broncofan]

Don't try to be a condescending dick.

I'm not trying to be. The use of sarcasm wasn't to insult you. I am just saying I don't think it's unexpected. You say the militia men only came after the government started using force. Well you have to admit that militia men might be the types to jump the gun and assume the government is using unjustified force when it's not.

The government was taking an aggressive posture to enforce its laws because that's what they have to do or nobody would follow laws.It's very self-fulfilling all of it. Militia men don't recognize the legitimacy of the government. But the government takes the position that it is legitimate. And when they use force to enforce their laws, they are acting within power that has been vested in them. If people show up with guns to oppose lawful government action of course it escalates the situation. The only way to de-escalate it would be for Cliven Bundy to conform his conduct to the law.

[kittyKaiti]

Cliven Bundy responds to NY Times' allegations of racism. Stands beside black community, mentions notable black militaman still at his house providing defense and security.

[trish]

Breaking News: Racist Claims He Isn't Racist. Other Racists Agree!

[kittyKaiti]

Breaking News: Racist Claims He Isn't Racist. Other Racists Agree!

Yes. So racist, that he stands arm in arm with the black folks defending his family! Please, try again.

[broncofan]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/2006/08...eli-bodyguard/