• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Feds move in on Nevada rancher's herd over illegal grazing

mac said:
like the weathermen underground?
Click to expand...

Don't bring that into this.

Unless a government is truly tyrannical (which it is not in this case) I object to all advocating or practicing of violence to achieve political ends.
 
mac said:
There is a world of difference between threatening federal employees and responding to threatening federal employees.
Click to expand...

What the actual **** are you talking about.

mac said:
You don't know much about history...or reading comprehension....do you?
Click to expand...

Au contraire. There were pretty violent demonstrations in the days preceding the Kent State shootings, and there were tear gas canisters being thrown back at police and whatnot before shots were fired. But if you have a shred of evidence that the demonstrators were actually armed, then present it please.
 
Jetboogieman said:
Unless a government is truly tyrannical (which it is not in this case) I object to all advocating or practicing of violence to achieve political ends.
Click to expand...

Truly tyrannical? What is that exactly?
 
mac said:
He was not ordered, to my knowledge, to cease grazing, and the cattle were not being siezed for violating such an order. The cattle were being seized for back debt. There is a difference, he was not committing a crime.
Click to expand...

What part of theft of service do you not understand? The man illegally brought his cattle onto government land to graze. To claim he didn't know what he was doing was wrong is idiotic. The man was indeed brought into court and on multiple occasions, lost.

Because he stood up to an overzealous BLM.
Click to expand...

How is it overzealous when he's on government land committing a crime?
 
Federalist said:
Truly tyrannical? What is that exactly?
Click to expand...

That's a massive question you're asking, it really depends on many factors, largely it occurs where people have been stripped of their political power (right to vote, right to a fair trial etc.) but that's a question that always depends on the specific circumstances... this is not one of those circumstances.
 
Bigfoot 88 said:
The cowards are the agents who would be willing to shoot women. Hence the strategy.
Click to expand...

The BLM hasn't said they were going to shoot women, the Tea Party nutsacks are the ones that want to use them as a prop to shoot innocent BLM workers while they hide behind them....

Get a new set of idols, these people are sick, pathetic, crazy lunatics.
 
mac said:
The BLM's tactics were over the top, heavy handed, and ridiculously oppressive while at the same time being completely unnecessary. This is exactly the type of activity the founding fathers had in mind when including the right to bear arms in the bill of rights. Protection against an over-powerful, and heavy handed, central government. It worked.
Click to expand...

Yeah, how dare they demand to be paid for what they are owed, go to court and win a few times, wait 20 years and go and try to get what is owed them from this mooching welfare queen!
 
mac said:
Like the Black Panthers, Kent State Students...etc...those morons?



I respond in kind.
Click to expand...

So, you have no argument, so you bring up things that are not germane to the discussion at hand?

Weak. Focus on what is happening here, your idol is a deadbeat who won't pay his bills, and he has a bunch of drooling gomers just itching to kill a fed.
 
mac said:
They all stood in defiance of the govt, some armed, some not. The BLM's action were oppressive and unnecessary. I applaud those Americans who stood up against that. Even if Bundy is in the wrong for not paying the fees, the BLM's response was unnecessarily aggressive.
Click to expand...

No, they stood in favor of a leach who won't pay what he owes, but all the other ranchers paid, heck, this guy even paid until Clinton was elected. This clown claims there is no federal government. The BLM has every right to go and seize what is owed. You stick up for deadbeats, you are such a liberal.
 
Jetboogieman said:
Don't bring that into this.

Unless a government is truly tyrannical (which it is not in this case) I object to all advocating or practicing of violence to achieve political ends.
Click to expand...

but the weatherman are justified, right?
 
beefheart said:
No, they stood in favor of a leach who won't pay what he owes, but all the other ranchers paid, heck, this guy even paid until Clinton was elected. This clown claims there is no federal government. The BLM has every right to go and seize what is owed. You stick up for deadbeats, you are such a liberal.
Click to expand...

Well, apparently they figured out they were going the wrong way with things, didn't they?
 
beefheart said:
So, you have no argument, so you bring up things that are not germane to the discussion at hand?

Weak. Focus on what is happening here, your idol is a deadbeat who won't pay his bills, and he has a bunch of drooling gomers just itching to kill a fed.
Click to expand...

What's happening here is that a group of people felt they were being mistreated by the govt, no different than any other group that has felt the same....just not one you agree with.
 
beefheart said:
Yeah, how dare they demand to be paid for what they are owed, go to court and win a few times, wait 20 years and go and try to get what is owed them from this mooching welfare queen!
Click to expand...

Right, because they need that money now.
 
mac said:
What's happening here is that a group of people felt they were being mistreated by the govt, no different than any other group that has felt the same....just not one you agree with.
Click to expand...

How was this group being mistreated? They are taxpayers, they are owed money from this welfare queen, they should demand that someone pay their bills...
 
Kobie said:
What the actual **** are you talking about.
Click to expand...

Read for comprehension, it's not a complex statement.

Au contraire. There were pretty violent demonstrations in the days preceding the Kent State shootings, and there were tear gas canisters being thrown back at police and whatnot before shots were fired. But if you have a shred of evidence that the demonstrators were actually armed, then present it please.
Click to expand...

When did I say the Kent state protesters were armed?
 
Tettsuo said:
What part of theft of service do you not understand? The man illegally brought his cattle onto government land to graze. To claim he didn't know what he was doing was wrong is idiotic. The man was indeed brought into court and on multiple occasions, lost.
Click to expand...

onto public land.

How is it overzealous when he's on government land committing a crime?
Click to expand...

He's not committing a crime. And if he were, this situation would make no more sense than a cop waving a gun in a jaywalker's face.
 
mac said:
Read for comprehension, it's not a complex statement.
Click to expand...

You're not making much sense.

mac said:
When did I say the Kent state protesters were armed?
Click to expand...

So you were talking about the Panthers then? Maybe I wouldn't have to ask questions if you didn't write everything in the vaguest language possible.
 
mac said:
onto public land.



He's not committing a crime. And if he were, this situation would make no more sense than a cop waving a gun in a jaywalker's face.
Click to expand...

So, losing his case in court multiple times means nothing to you?

You want anarchy, just as long as it is anarchy you agree with.

Public land, but he still has to pay grazing fees. You keep admiring deadbeat scofflaw moochers...
 
Lutherf said:
In most parts of Nevada good grazing land is scarce then when the government comes in and starts charging for that land use while substantially limiting the rancher's ability to use that land effectively they are, in essence, putting that rancher out of business. In this case they seem to be putting a political motive before the practical motives.
Click to expand...
Nonsense ... The fees charged by the BLM are so low compared to privately owned land they amount to a huge subsidy to cattle ranchers.
Without the cheap federal grazing land many cattle farmers would never have been in the cattle business at all.
 
How did the federal government acquire the land? What makes anyone think their property claims are legitimate?
 
Jetboogieman said:
You really are just an anarchist aren't you?
Click to expand...

How did they acquire the property? It's a fair question. If they acquired it through theft, in which they did, then their property claims lack all merit.
 
Can't wait to listen and read all this bull manure in a few weeks.
I'm staying away from I-15 on the way out.
Amarillo by morning .
beefheart said:
So, losing his case in court multiple times means nothing to you?

You want anarchy, just as long as it is anarchy you agree with.

Public land, but he still has to pay grazing fees. You keep admiring deadbeat scofflaw moochers...
Click to expand...
 
Let's just blow up the whole gosh darn thing and have city-states.
When will Libertaryans like these squatters be happy ?
Henrin said:
How did the federal government acquire the land? What makes anyone think their property claims are legitimate?
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom