- Joined
- Feb 16, 2011
- Messages
- 9,206
- Reaction score
- 12,092
- Location
- US
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Re: Reid calls Bundy supporters ‘domestic terrorists’
:screwy
:screwy
You did say so, right here:
He's not guilty of a crime until he's convicted in court.
You *think* he's guilty but your opinion doesn't decide if he's *actually* guilty.
You would do well to learn the diference. Has he been arrested? Has he been charged? I'm sure DP would enjoy a thread on that if he were.
Should I have been shocked that you refused to post the Photoshop evidence that you've based your opinion on? Was it because you don't know how or are you just lazy?
WHat is there to accuse the photos say enough. There is a man with a firearm that for all appearances looks loaded and pointed at a crowd of people. By Nevada state law he is guilty of a crime by those photos alone. It isnt a accusation it is a known fact, whether you accept it or not I dont care.
Then I heard the words, “I’ve got a clear shot at four of them,” and to my right found one of the men pointing his weapon in the direction of the BLM. For me, time had stopped.
“I’m ready to pull the trigger if fired upon,” said another man on the bridge. That was what other Bundy supporters said too – they wouldn’t shoot first, but they would return fire.
Nevada showdown | Photographers' Blog
I decided to leave the protesters’ rallying point and drive several miles to where BLM and National Park Service (NPS) officers were holding Bundy’s impounded cattle but when I got there, there didn’t seem to be anything new to report.
I was making my way back to the protest site when Jennifer called me. She said the demonstrators were coming in my direction to go to the BLM facility and demand that Bundy’s cattle be released. My heart skipped a beat and anxiety set in, as I realised the armed group was heading this way looking for a showdown.
I never found a number of federal agents estimate in print (other than Bundy's wife), but I did see an image with 19 armed agents from a thug friendly page.He was part of a 1,000-strong coalition of armed militia-men, cowboys on horseback, gun rights activists and others who rallied to Cliven Bundy's Bunkerville ranch, about 80 miles northeast of Las Vegas, in a stand-off with about a dozen agents from the federal Bureau of Land Management.
After Nevada ranch stand-off, emboldened militias ask: where next? | Reuters
Here's a photographers blog from Reuters that supports that the thugs weapons were loaded, had clear sight, range and willingness to fire. Of course the true believers will deny and say it 'proves' nothing. Maybe, maybe not. But the photographer was there, none of us were.
Also the photographer relates that it was the thugs that initiated the confrontation.
Another note. I tried looking for the number of federal agents on scene - print and image. I've seen the number 200 thrown about in various posts, but in my search that number always seemed to be traced back to Bundy's wife's allegation. She was also the lone source of the government sniper allegation. Another article said this...
I never found a number of federal agents estimate in print (other than Bundy's wife), but I did see an image with 19 armed agents from a thug friendly page.
Top 12 Pictures from the Bundy Ranch Standoff
Here you go moot:Should I have been shocked that you refused to post the Photoshop evidence that you've based your opinion on? Was it because you don't know how or are you just lazy?
Wrong. I countered what was already posted and suggested that some look for themselves before they blindly accept as proof that he indeed pointed at LE based alone on a picture without analysis(the one picture that tried to prove guilt followed the bill of his cap, not the weapon and even shoots off to nowhere). You should try it yourself as everyone's monitor is different. My "lightened" photo may still be too dark on your monitor. After all it is not on an easel in a court room. Many quickly jumped on the only poster that 1st proposed this with their only "proof" because they say so. It would not hold up in court yet, many here have already pronounced him as guilty without any attempt to examine "evidence". I checked the photo out then closed PS why would I waste hard disk space on this guy?
I also stated that I did not think he was completely lawful as he had weapon drawn with no immediate threat.
Here you go moot:
Keep in mind this elevation photo
View attachment 67165538
What is he 'aiming' at?
View attachment 67165539
You may not agree but I think Bucks photo is spot on. And when someone points a gun at someone....that is considered a threat in any legal sense of the word.
Here's a photographers blog from Reuters that supports that the thugs weapons were loaded, had clear sight, range and willingness to fire. Of course the true believers will deny and say it 'proves' nothing. Maybe, maybe not. But the photographer was there, none of us were.
Also the photographer relates that it was the thugs that initiated the confrontation.
Another note. I tried looking for the number of federal agents on scene - print and image. I've seen the number 200 thrown about in various posts, but in my search that number always seemed to be traced back to Bundy's wife's allegation. She was also the lone source of the government sniper allegation. Another article said this...
I never found a number of federal agents estimate in print (other than Bundy's wife), but I did see an image with 19 armed agents from a thug friendly page.
Top 12 Pictures from the Bundy Ranch Standoff
:screwy
Good stuff, BWG. That helps answer some of the questions I had....especially the bit about the 200 armed agents surrounding the Bundy ranch. I thought that was quite a stretch. But that there were witnesses who not only saw the 'thugs' on the bridge point their weapons at BLM...but also heard one of them say....“I’ve got a clear shot at four of them.” Case closed.
Reid calls Bundy supporters
This, a sitting Senator calls the American people exercising their right to protest.
He's really a filthy piece of crap...
Because it would have been a one way ticket to prison and they would have lost a lot of sympathetic supporters.Ok, now since these people are all bloodthirsty wanting revolution, and are terrorist, etc...
Why did not one of them shoot?
Gee, no wonder the BLM backed down.They could have drawn first blood and all, these guys are suffering from paranoid delusions, so they clearly lack the mental capacity to consider the implications and response to this attack... Hell, they had those blm guys in a kill zone, no escape.
Could it be that the BLM camp wasn't anywhere near the protestors and the protestors marched down the road to confront the BLM? Because that's what the photos show happened.Could it be that they were acting as a deterrent from the potential that the blm might escalate on their documented abuses of those protesters?
Because it would have been a one way ticket to prison and they would have lost a lot of sympathetic supporters.
Gee, no wonder the BLM backed down.
Could it be that the BLM camp wasn't anywhere near the protestors and the protestors marched down the road to confront the BLM? Because that's what the photos show happened.
He's got a Duck Dynasty hat on. lol That pretty much says it all about that dude. The more videos these yahoos make the more they incriminate themselves.
He's aiming at the LEO camp.
PS....thanks for posting this, MAC.
That's about half the story...
No, they were trying to incite the attack so that the whole crowd could be mowed down, the swat team was just out of sight.
Also, that was after they were told that the blm was leaving, so, this was a tactic of further instigation...
After the week or so of beating people up, pepper spray, tasering, dog attacks, etc against the protesters.
Does that make the guy aiming the gun right? No, but he was prepared to defend the people on the ground below if the crowd was attacked.
But wait, that would put them as rational people, and not the terrorist extremist psychopaths that you are trying to sell them as...
So tell me something. What did you think of George Bush when he signed the Patriot Act?The way the government has been labeling people and groups in the U.S. since 9/11 as terrorists will sooner than later ensnare everyone. Probably a reason why telecommunications are so heavily monitored and scrutinized - everyone is a potential terrorist in the eyes of the government.
I think the actual piece of crap comes in the form of two brothers...
When you think about it, it makes perfect sense. Cliven Bundy, an uneducated backcountry freeloader, becomes a simple pawn in a game played by a millionaire TV host and two billionaire Conservative kingpins. His story, one of simple tax evasion, is hyped by Charles and David Koch in an effort to draw attention to the issue of privatizing federal land. This draws in the cavalry via the Tea Party Patriots who are willing to use women as human shields to fight off the big bad government. Add to that, Fox News’ outright lie accusing Harry Reid of trying to steal Bundy land for his own personal gain and you’ve got the ingredients for a potentially explosive situation. What better way to make the case for your patriotic cause then to have some patsy rancher and a crew of faux patriots become martyrs at the hands of the Bureau of Land Management?
Truth Be Told: The Real Reason Behind Sean Hannity's Obsession with Cliven Bundy
You mustn't be too proud of George Washington when he got involved with the Whiskey Rebellion?That's what those who think as you do would have been saying about American revolutionaries too. If it hadn't been for people who had the guts to say no to those in power, we'd still be paying the royals, rather than eating up the tabloid crap about them.
Nobody WANTS to start a war, but if you aren't willing to fight when you believe your rights are being trampled on, then you are not only a coward, but you just keep giving up more until there's nothing left to fight for.
So tell me something. What did you think of George Bush when he signed the Patriot Act?
I was just curious. Doesn't seem like anyone is ready to get rid of it, huh.I didn't think anything because I didn't even know it existed because I was 16 in late 2001. But, when I did find out about it, it upset me greatly. Why do you ask?
I was just curious. Doesn't seem like anyone is ready to get rid of it, huh.
I was just curious. Doesn't seem like anyone is ready to get rid of it, huh.