• 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!

Militia around Bundy Ranch set up checkpoints, demand papers, control taffic flow

So, without a bunch of rich (racist) gentleman farmers to lend it some credibility....it's just a bunch of dopes with guns, eh?

AJivemans definitions;

Farmer = sod buster

Rancher = cowboy

Dopes = Clyde Bundy, anti government zealots
 
Thanks for making it absolutely clear that you can't mount an intelligent response.

I'm just illustrating the absurdity of your statements. For example that "tax evasion" is not a basis for revolution. You really need to get a grasp on US history.
 
Last edited:
So, without a bunch of rich (racist) gentleman farmers to lend it some credibility....it's just a bunch of dopes with guns, eh?
Their respective causes lend them credibility, or in this case, fail to. Bundy supporters have thus far failed to make any sort of credible argument as to why the government is in the wrong. Referring back to the founders as some sort of crutch just won't cut it.
 
I'm just illustrating the absurdity of your statements. For example that "tax evasion" is not a basis for revolution. You really need to get a grasp on US history.

I understand history quite well. And I stand by the obvious moral axiom that facilitating tax evasion is not sufficient grounds for just rebellion.
 
I understand history quite well. And I stand by the obvious moral axiom that facilitating tax evasion is not sufficient grounds for just rebellion.

Then you're ignoring the historical precedent of Americans opposition to taxes, and the lengths they'll go to respond, among other things.
 
That high horse is looking like a donkey without an argument. ;) When you're ready to tell us if you have a right to freeload, you're welcome to come back.

The idea that someone doesn't have a right to "freeload" on unused, public land that serves no other purpose is inconsistent with the idea that one has the right to "freeload" on American society for subsistence simply for living in the country.
 
Then you're ignoring the historical precedent of Americans opposition to taxes, and the lengths they'll go to respond, among other things.

I'm not ignoring it, I'm saying it's wrong, which it is.
 
I'm not ignoring it, I'm saying it's wrong, which it is.

I understand that that is your opinion. Luckily, the early Americans didn't hold that opinion.
 
Their respective causes lend them credibility, or in this case, fail to. Bundy supporters have thus far failed to make any sort of credible argument as to why the government is in the wrong. Referring back to the founders as some sort of crutch just won't cut it.

No, they disagree with federal control of the land. That is not wrong.
 
No, they disagree with federal control of the land. That is not wrong.

It is when they start acting ILLEGALLY. If THEY don't like it, they are free to fight it in courts. The simple fact is they didn't get their way and are throwing a temper tantrum illegally.

Those that support Bundy are supporting freeloading. Don't EVER talk to me about welfare recipients when YOU support one.
 
I understand that that is your opinion. Luckily, the early Americans didn't hold that opinion.

And what moral justification is there for it?
 
It is when they start acting ILLEGALLY. If THEY don't like it, they are free to fight it in courts. The simple fact is they didn't get their way and are throwing a temper tantrum illegally.

I agree, they can take it to the court. Or they can do this and let elected officials respond.

Those that support Bundy are supporting freeloading. Don't EVER talk to me about welfare recipients when YOU support one.

No, they're protesting...and I'll talk to you about whatever I want. :shrug:
 
I agree, they can take it to the court. Or they can do this and let elected officials respond.

Oh they are going to get their elected officials to respond alright, though I doubt they are going to like the end result of it.

No, they're protesting...and I'll talk to you about whatever I want. :shrug:

No, they are not just protesting. And go right ahead and I will call you out on your hypocrisy each and every time for it when you bring it up.

The right is already hypocritical, because they believe they can act against the government for anything they don't like, but when the left does it they accuse the left of being traitors.
 
Oh they are going to get their elected officials to respond alright, though I doubt they are going to like the end result of it.

Perhaps. :shrug:

No, they are not just protesting. And go right ahead and I will call you out on your hypocrisy each and every time for it when you bring it up.

You're already a hypocrite because you support this protesting but not OWS.

I didn't oppose OWS, in the sense that they didn't have a right to do it. Everyone has a right to protest in this country. Make something else up now.
 

The cartoon is not accurate at all:

- First the cross on the holster conveys the impression that the militia are all christian inspired. The reality is that many, perhaps most, are secular
-The CSA battle flag? Most and perhaps nearly all of the militia types at the ranch were not southereners.

Rather, the opposite is true. The South's religous heritiage tends to support "giving to ceaser what is ceaser's". That does not mean that Bundy does not have support in the south, but I bet the supporters are fewer in proportion to the west and say, Michigan. In the end, the South has never been a hot bed of support for tax evaders.
 
Are you saying the government doesn't have the right to impose taxes?

Not at all. I'm saying that it must be done with the consent of the people.
 
This is why we have the rule of law. You let someone get away with not paying grazing fees because they have guns trained against you and you open the door for all kinds of ****.

You don't really need to be a poli sci major to figure that one out.
 
Not at all. I'm saying that it must be done with the consent of the people.

All of the people? Some of the people? Most of the people?
 
The idea that someone doesn't have a right to "freeload" on unused, public land that serves no other purpose is inconsistent with the idea that one has the right to "freeload" on American society for subsistence simply for living in the country.

You don't have a right to welfare either. People are denied welfare benefits every single day.
 
Back
Top Bottom