But, you've stated you don't care about him owing or not owing money, so what's the point of you writing on the thread subject?
A lien on his cattle? How do you know they already don't have one? Isn't owing grazing fees for as long as he has enough reason? You know, Bundy lost in court? Didn't you?
No matter how you cut it, he is still a moocher, still a deadbeat, compared to other cattle ranchers who are glad to have grazing privileges so reasonably offered. Most ranchers, and other people pay their debts, Bundy does not.
Here's another angle of the guy with the gun.
What's over those people? How far is it?
WHAT is he pointing at?
The Bundy crisis in Nevada | MSNBC
And what happened to this country using the words "terrorist" or "terrorism" anymore, and moving away from the "politics of fear"? Obviously the people who support Reid's use of the words are interested in keeping the "politics of fear" firmly in place.
If you were a law enforcement officer and saw a guy with a scoped sniper rifle pointed your way, what would you do? Wonder whether or not you were in his cross-hairs? I know what I would do.
And bada-bing... there ya go. Ignition... take off. We would have our own bloody "American Spring" all over some guy with a rifle and a chip on his shoulder and a cop who didn't like guns pointed at him.
Last edited by Captain America; 04-18-14 at 04:48 PM.
It's GREAT to be me. --- "45% liberal/55% conservative"
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'nice doggy" until you can find a gun.
I never suggested a domestic individual couldn't be an "enemy" that must be defended against. I inquired to wigged if said enemy should be treated similar to a foreign combatant on foreign soil like he suggested.
That quote sUggests a need to defend the constitution....would air striking an American citizen, not convicted of a crime and thus innocent under the law, on American soil....like wiggin suggests by suggesting we take action against them similar to how we deal with terrorists in Pakistan....be defending the constitution, or violating it.
Is your suggestion that congress can drone strike anyone they deem an enemy of the constitution, since all your provided in response was a pointless quote with no original content other than a bolding of three words?
"I am appalled that somebody who is the nominee...would take that kind of position"
"A court took away a presidency"
"...the brother of a man running for president was the governor of the state..."
It's horrifying because Trump is blunt instead of making overt implications.
And as much as some keep saying he was pointing that gun at law enforcement, none of them have yet to prove it.
But I still want someone to explain why it's okay for Reid to use those words when it's the "politics of fear" this administration so wanted to avoid. This thread has become about Bundy, cattle, moochers and liens, and no more discussion of that idiot Reid.