Topic: Armed Feds Prepare For Showdown With Nevada Cattle Rancher - page 12. (Read 34706 times)
Ya, so I was just gazing into my crystal ball, and I thought I'd let all my new-found friends from this thread know how things will turn out in Bundy-land.
An anonymous wealthy donor shows up and pays Bundy's past fees. Sharp-eyed viewers might notice that Bundy has not done anything terribly wrong, nor have any of his family. He's been an annoying pain-in-the-ass but there is no law against that. He's also been the gift that keeps on giving to us on the left by telling tall tails that are easily dismissed, making absurd arguments which are trivial to shoot down, making out-of-the-blue and over-the-top racial comments which just happened to be timed to royally screw his political supporters, etc and just happened to be caught by a reporter who happened to be around. That might make a certain small segment of analysts say 'hmmm...', but not a lot.
In short, Bundy will be leasing land from the BLM for his somewhat reduced herd next year and paying the fees like all the rest of the Ranchers. His problem which have been building for 20+ years will be resolved and behind him.
There are a contingent of people who really are 'milita' and at least in their own minds 'patriots'. They were stirred by the cause, packed up their guns, and drove on out to NV. Some of them were there for the showdown with the BLM. They are now in a shit-load of trouble and they've got no way out. Most of them have already packed up and gone home, but they will be quietly picked up by the cops in the coming months.
There are a contingent of individuals who worked formally worked on this psyop. They will vanish into the ether that they came out of it.
There are a contingent of individuals who are still potentially useful in future psyops. Lots of them just happened to miss the goings-down during the 'showdown'. They might continue on in their present capacity.
Then there are the general public. They'll be left with a general discomfort about the 2nd amendment and the dangers of certain 'extreme' groups. The label 'extremist' will be more effective when pinned on the chest of future adversaries, and laws which protect 'the people' from various dangers (and guns in particular) will be easier to pass.
Most of the general public was mainly unaware or apathetic about this event. Those who were not will have records added to their dossiers deep within the NSA databases detailing how actively they researched things, what web-sites they looked at, what they wrote on various forums, etc, etc.
I think the issue is people believe they ahave the answer figured out and try to use politics to prove their points over history. This is a very complex issue and things won't be quite so easy to un blur the lines that only add more complexity to the issue.
Wow this whole issue on the Bundy ranch seems to spark some real interest around here. I know it has more to do with out society then it does then Ranch. Just intrigued how passionate people get about their beliefs.
Our TV and radio shouts about "The Showdown With A Nevada Cattle Rancher ", then we come here and talk about it for days.
Discussions can be useful and educational, but when the TV "chooses" our current topics:
Is that how real freedom spreads?
We are passionate because freedom is fundamental. And those who don't understand that, endanger all of us.
Agreed we won't win with groupwise (communally organized) resistance, because political organization can always be manipulated. Tbvcof even seems to have a point about this, but I don't think he is genuine about winning in any case and seems he leans Communist.
We will win with individual action technology, and in my estimation specifically cpu-only mineable, anonymous crypto-currency.
No, I take my gun ownership rights under the 2nd amendment very seriously.
No doubt. It seems to be other people's 2nd amendment rights that you find disposable. Ever consider public office? You seem abundantly qualified. You seem to have the ability to view the slaughter of your own countrymen as dispassionately as some might view a train schedule. While some might view narcissism as a handicap, I believe you should embrace it and seek a career in politics.
- I publicly admitted that my own analysis leads me to the conclusion that 9/11 was an inside job.
- I say terrible things about Christians sometimes.
- I've vid-sexed with a girlfriend once even though I was pretty sure that the NSA would get the stream if they wanted it.
So, to answer your question: 'Not very seriously.'
No, I take my gun ownership rights under the 2nd amendment very seriously.
No doubt. It seems to be other people's 2nd amendment rights that you find disposable. Ever consider public office? You seem abundantly qualified. You seem to have the ability to view the slaughter of your own countrymen as dispassionately as some might view a train schedule. While some might view narcissism as a handicap, I believe you should embrace it and seek a career in politics.
You are a perfect drone. Doubtless the federal government would love to have many more just like you.
No, I take my gun ownership rights under the 2nd amendment very seriously. I educate myself about what they mean and how I am allowed to use the guns I have. Most of the duities which come with my gun ownership rights are pretty common-sense to me.
To me guns are a serious tool. I don't confront people very often, but in at least one case when I have in fairly recent times I deliberately left my gun(s) behind. This in part because I left my own property to pursue some vandals who had stolen a minor piece of property. I confronted them on a county road which runs through my land. There was almost nothing good to come of even having a gun with me and very much bad that could have happened. BTW, I got my property back without any trouble. I happen to be of a relatively imposing stature else I would not have pursued the vandals at all.
This does not have much to do with the 2nd in my mind. The guns are a tool that the militias were misusing, but it could have been anything from a pitchfork to a pipe-bomb to their own kids as human shields.
As far as I'm concerned, the militia clowns are actively supporting an ongoing crime. You don't have to 'fear' a kid in order to spank his ass, ...
Misusing how? Were the federal forces misusing their guns? What's the difference?
What crime? Are they not authorized to open carry? You mean the "crime" of the rancher not paying the fees the BLM says he owes? What does that have to do with the militia guys?
...
You'd have to be in a pretty deep state of denial to believe that brandishing a weapon and pointing it at someone was not intimidation. And the intimidation was to protect Cliven Bundy who is in trouble because has stolen resources from the rightful owner (that would be me as a tax paying citizen of the U.S.) and is evading justice for his actions. It is pretty unusual to have the right to intimidate someone with a visible firearm as well it should be. Doing so in the commission of a crime is a big deal.
Actually, it looks a bit to me as though the Feds were setting up the metro cops to be mowed down, and the metro cops sensed this and resent it. I don't see very many 'good guys' in this whole thing, but not especially due to the fact that the Feds were armed in attempting to perform the completely legitimate activity that they were involved in (rounding up trespassing cattle and selling them to pay bills owed.) It seems perfectly legitimate and common sense for them to be armed to me.
At the end of the day, I would say that anyone who lent any sort of support to Bundy is both demonstrably irresponsible and guilty of at the very least assisting in a crime. If they were armed in doing so, they are in that much more trouble. Certainly anyone there should be stripped of any right to touch a gun from here forward, and if they are caught doing so they should be locked up for the protection of U.S. citizens.
You are a perfect drone. Doubtless the federal government would love to have many more just like you.
This does not have much to do with the 2nd in my mind. The guns are a tool that the militias were misusing, but it could have been anything from a pitchfork to a pipe-bomb to their own kids as human shields.
As far as I'm concerned, the militia clowns are actively supporting an ongoing crime. You don't have to 'fear' a kid in order to spank his ass, ...
Misusing how? Were the federal forces misusing their guns? What's the difference?
What crime? Are they not authorized to open carry? You mean the "crime" of the rancher not paying the fees the BLM says he owes? What does that have to do with the militia guys?
...
You'd have to be in a pretty deep state of denial to believe that brandishing a weapon and pointing it at someone was not intimidation. And the intimidation was to protect Cliven Bundy who is in trouble because has stolen resources from the rightful owner (that would be me as a tax paying citizen of the U.S.) and is evading justice for his actions. It is pretty unusual to have the right to intimidate someone with a visible firearm as well it should be. Doing so in the commission of a crime is a big deal.
Actually, it looks a bit to me as though the Feds were setting up the metro cops to be mowed down, and the metro cops sensed this and resent it. I don't see very many 'good guys' in this whole thing, but not especially due to the fact that the Feds were armed in attempting to perform the completely legitimate activity that they were involved in (rounding up trespassing cattle and selling them to pay bills owed.) It seems perfectly legitimate and common sense for them to be armed to me.
At the end of the day, I would say that anyone who lent any sort of support to Bundy is both demonstrably irresponsible and guilty of at the very least assisting in a crime. If they were armed in doing so, they are in that much more trouble. Certainly anyone there should be stripped of any right to touch a gun from here forward, and if they are caught doing so they should be locked up for the protection of U.S. citizens.
Changing the subject and using a "roll-eyes" smiley was very noble of you.
With respect, I think it was you who changed my particular subject.
And if we are getting all anal hair splitting about it, my meaning was that the public ownership of the means of production is a noble aspiration - I thought that was clear - but obviously not. Not being a "communist" per se. You can call them whatever you like if it makes you feel better about it - Communists, Fascists, Pinko's, Socialists, Collectivists, Anarcho Syndicalists etc etc - but if at the core of a political belief is the idea that the wealth of the nation should be held in the hands of the people (as do communists) then I believe that that is noble.
Were the communists who murdered many millions of their own people noble?
Of course not.
You can dream all you want, in reality communism has proven to be extremely evil.
Of course not.
You can dream all you want, in reality communism has proven to be extremely evil.
I don't know to what you are referring - I'm talking about Anonymint using the term "Communist" as an insult, like a throwback to some sort of McArthy witch-hunt cold war propogandist trip. It don't wash buddy.
ps. get your troops out of Iraq/Afghanistan
- and only then come back here and tell us about injustices perpetrated through ideological dogma.
FFS
You clearly said: "Communists have noble aspirations"
Communists believe in the public ownership of the means of production. That is a noble aspiration in my book...
My question was a direct response to what you said:
Changing the subject and using a "roll-eyes" smiley was very noble of you.
Why would men and women choosing to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights make you so uncomfortable? It seems pretty clear the militia guys were welcome there. What's the problem? Please tell me you're not one of those people that think just seeing a legal weapon in plain view is cause to tattle? Open carry IS still legal in most of the US. Chicago and DC do not count as they've clearly been ceded to communist authority. It always seems strange to me when people that claim they support the 2nd Amendment get all weak in the knees when people actually exercise that right.
I have no problem with state executives having the authority to direct their state's guard to do their bidding, provided those guardsman that respond remember the oaths they've taken, but un-elected federal alphabet agency heads should have no such authority.
This does not have much to do with the 2nd in my mind. The guns are a tool that the militias were misusing, but it could have been anything from a pitchfork to a pipe-bomb to their own kids as human shields.
As far as I'm concerned, the militia clowns are actively supporting an ongoing crime. You don't have to 'fear' a kid in order to spank his ass, and in fact it's hardly ever the case. When the kid does something wrong it's appropriate (in my opinion) to give him a spanking. Usually it's not something that the kid or the parent wants but at the end of the day, the kid is better off for it (I know I am.) The parent understands this because they have greater wisdom and world view.
The American public to the militia clowns is fairly analogous to a parent/child relationship. And if deadbeats and brats get away with doing bad, it will spawn more deadbeats and brats so the appropriate action is to put a stop to it as early as practical. Bundy is a good example. He got away with pulling his shit for two decades and here we are today with a much more significant problem than we would have if we'd thrown his ass in jail for a few days back in the early 90's.
Misusing how? Were the federal forces misusing their guns? What's the difference?
What crime? Are they not authorized to open carry? You mean the "crime" of the rancher not paying the fees the BLM says he owes? What does that have to do with the militia guys?
Actually never mind, your perspectives are so bizarre to me I don't think there's any chance I'll comprehend your twisted logic and strange value system. "Everybody please remain calm while the federal government exterminates thousands of it's own people as well as foreign nationals in an Amerikan city. Definitely definitely don't take this opportunity to exercise your Constitutionally protected rights...what few remain. Just twiddle your thumbs and watch reality teevee."
Wow this whole issue on the Bundy ranch seems to spark some real interest around here. I know it has more to do with out society then it does then Ranch. Just intrigued how passionate people get about their beliefs.
Our TV and radio shouts about "The Showdown With A Nevada Cattle Rancher ", then we come here and talk about it for days.
Discussions can be useful and educational, but when the TV "chooses" our current topics:
Is that how real freedom spreads?
Were the communists who murdered many millions of their own people noble?
I don't know to what you are referring - I'm talking about Anonymint using the term "Communist" as an insult, like a throwback to some sort of McArthy witch-hunt cold war propogandist trip. It don't wash buddy.
ps. get your troops out of Iraq/Afghanistan
- and only then come back here and tell us about injustices perpetrated through ideological dogma.
FFS
Wow this whole issue on the Bundy ranch seems to spark some real interest around here. I know it has more to do with out society then it does then Ranch. Just intrigued how passionate people get about their beliefs.
What mind? You clearly don't have a functioning brain stem.
Perhaps I should clarify my position. Your brain stem is operative, but your pre-frontal cortex is overcome with fear.
Wow! We can add neuropsychology to your long list of skills! You da' man!
I would note, however, that what you've done is not a 'clarification' but rather a 'reversal'. Keep practicing your word-salad tossing and you might become proficient enough at it at some point that it is effective in public rather than just in sovereigncitizenville.
Perhaps you will learn the meaning of words someday.
func·tion
ˈfəNGkSHən/
verb
gerund or present participle: functioning
work or operate in a proper or particular way.
"her liver is functioning normally"
"the electrical system had ceased to function"
fulfill the purpose or task of (a specified thing)
op·er·a·tive
adjective \ˈä-p(ə-)rə-tiv, ˈä-pə-ˌrā-\
: ready for use : capable of being used
Well at least you are honest about your belief. If you understood how megadeath results from public ownership, then hopefully you would recognize that pedophiles are much less destructive to society, though this isn't a plea to tolerate pedophilia.
Of course it isn't...
Communists believe in the public ownership of the means of production. That is a noble aspiration in my book...
Were the communists who murdered many millions of their own people noble?
Of course not.
You can dream all you want, in reality communism has proven to be extremely evil.
Perhaps I should clarify my position. Your brain stem is operative, but your pre-frontal cortex is overcome with fear.
Wow! We can add neuropsychology to your long list of skills! You da' man!
I would note, however, that what you've done is not a 'clarification' but rather a 'reversal'. Keep practicing your word-salad tossing and you might become proficient enough at it at some point that it is effective in public rather than just in sovereigncitizenville.
Profoundly obsfucating the prodigiously lucid 
If you understood how megadeath results from public ownership
Take deep breaths and count to 10
Good grief. You Communists always ignore historical evidence. Just stay in your position, your lesson is coming before 2020.
Jump to: