• 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!

Utah lawmaker moves to disarm BLM, IRS, says ‘They’re not paramilitary units’

ecofarm said:
And it's also others' job to enforce the laws.
Click to expand...

As the thread is about....should regulatory agencies have police powers? I say no and have given my reasons why. All that you've come up with so far is "yes they should because it will save money!". When shown that it would actually be cheaper to use local law enforcement you ignored it completely in favor of bashing at me.

*shakes head* You're arguements are quite predictable, are circular, and full of fail. You are dismissed.
 
Kal'Stang said:
As the thread is about....should regulatory agencies have police powers? I say no and have given my reasons why. All that you've come up with so far is "yes they should because it will save money!". When shown that it would actually be cheaper to use local law enforcement you ignored it completely in favor of bashing at me.

*shakes head* You're arguements are quite predictable, are circular, and full of fail. You are dismissed.
Click to expand...

Very mature of you. I bet you feel big and strong spewing crap on the internet.
 
Hopefully, Mr. Stewart would also like to see the paramilitary group which descended upon federal agents disarmed too. Since he's against paramilitary groups as a whole.
 
ecofarm said:
And it's also others' job to enforce the laws.



Who claimed the FBI was not there?
Click to expand...

Exactly, but since the local sheriff is sympathetic and a friend to/of Bundy, he won't enforce any local laws, or constitutional laws, as evidenced when his (Bundy's) militia buddies began stopping motorists and asking them where they lived, where they were going, etc.. The sheriff could have put a stop to that constitutional violation, but he didn't.
 
AJiveMan said:
Yup.

Law Enforcement
Click to expand...
From your link:
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manages a wide variety of resources spread over 245 million acres of public lands and 700 million acres of subsurface mineral estate. These public land resources include timber, forage, energy and minerals, recreation, wild horse and burro herds, fish and wildlife habitat, wilderness areas, and archaeological and paleontological sites. The BLM has been given specific resource protection and law enforcement responsibilities that relate to its resource management mission.
Click to expand...
In other words they are a 'double-up" of the Forrest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Parks Service, USGS, Ect, etc, etc...

Thanks for proving my point.
 
A CON politician pandering to the home crowd... so who is impressed???

Actually BLM land isn't Park Land, nor National Forest land, some folks get confused but there is more than one sort of Federal Land. As the link about the BLM says, they are responsible for law enforcement on BLM land. They are not paramilitary but law enforcement. Bundy is a common thief, if he robbed a federaly insured bank of half the money he owes he would have been in prison long ago. If the Bundy boy had attacked an inner city cop and his K9 the you tube beat down would have done more than put a bruise on the guy, and many CONs would have surmised you really shouldn't kick a police dog... :lol:

You could disarm the BLM rangers putting their lives at risk in the very vast land they patrol to protect the resources from criminals, and Bundy is a criminal but so are the folks who dig up rare catcus to sell out of state, or drug runners, smugglers and the like.

Relieving the BLM, Park Service and all that of their weapons will either allow rampart lawlessness or the rise of a super federal LE agency.

Now anyone placing odds or taking bets on if the CON no sense gets anywhere in Congress???? :)
 
Jack Fabulous said:
From your link:

In other words they are a 'double-up" of the Forrest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Parks Service, USGS, Ect, etc, etc...

Thanks for proving my point.
Click to expand...

Whatever makes you happy.
 
notquiteright said:
A CON politician pandering to the home crowd... so who is impressed???

Actually BLM land isn't Park Land, nor National Forest land, some folks get confused but there is more than one sort of Federal Land. As the link about the BLM says, they are responsible for law enforcement on BLM land. They are not paramilitary but law enforcement. Bundy is a common thief, if he robbed a federaly insured bank of half the money he owes he would have been in prison long ago. If the Bundy boy had attacked an inner city cop and his K9 the you tube beat down would have done more than put a bruise on the guy, and many CONs would have surmised you really shouldn't kick a police dog... :lol:

You could disarm the BLM rangers putting their lives at risk in the very vast land they patrol to protect the resources from criminals, and Bundy is a criminal but so are the folks who dig up rare catcus to sell out of state, or drug runners, smugglers and the like.

Relieving the BLM, Park Service and all that of their weapons will either allow rampart lawlessness or the rise of a super federal LE agency.

Now anyone placing odds or taking bets on if the CON no sense gets anywhere in Congress???? :)
Click to expand...

Yes, see post # 131. :lamo
 
AJiveMan said:
Yes, see post # 131. :lamo
Click to expand...

yeah he didn't highlight the part about LE on BLM lands, but let not facts stop a good anti- gubmint rant....

But I do shake my head at CONs who use the attempt to stop criminal activity without gunning down the Bundy family of thieves for ignorant anti- law enforcement crap.

It's like protecting bank robbers because the CON kooks don't like the way the FED regulates the interest rate... :doh
 
notquiteright said:
yeah he didn't highlight the part about LE on BLM lands, but let not facts stop a good anti- gubmint rant....

But I do shake my head at CONs who use the attempt to stop criminal activity without gunning down the Bundy family of thieves for ignorant anti- law enforcement crap.

It's like protecting bank robbers because the CON kooks don't like the way the FED regulates the interest rate... :doh
Click to expand...
Yeah shucks, if the cons are going to lump the BLM, Forest Service, Fish & Game departments, hell, throw in the IRS, department of education, and all the others in the same bucket.

I sort of find it odd they (cons) hate welfare sheetbags, but let one well to do rancher operate lawlessly, oh, that's okay, let 'em slide. I don't buy into that at all.
 
Moot said:
I thought it was Bundy that pulled the race card. I never understood why he started talking about race in the first place. What did that have to do with his cows and the feds?
Click to expand...

Cows come in black and white, WTF do you want from me?
 
Lachean said:
I just love it when they try to play that card against me, a brown skinned person, "showing solidarity with other white racists" :lamo

The race card, the last refuge of the lowest common denominator.
Click to expand...

They pull out the Uncle Tom or Cousin Wang card out for you.
 
American said:
They pull out the Uncle Tom or Cousin Wang card out for you.
Click to expand...

Cousin Wang? I never heard that one. Sounds like a southern thing.
 
uh, no, dude, the House is NOT the senate. both are houses of "congress", but they aint the same body or the same people.
 
I'm far more concerned with the crackpot Bundy sympathizers who fancy themselves as modern day Revolutionaries.
 
Kal'Stang said:
:shrug: Some laws shouldn't be followed just because they are The Law.
Click to expand...

Which ones?

We're suppose to be a nation of people, not a nation ruled by the elite.
Click to expand...

Just populist sloganeering that adds up to jack. Nothing about the laws Bundy has violated has anything to do with some sort of phony class struggle.

Personally I think that since Bundy's family has been in that area for well over a century they should not have to ask for permission to use land that they had been using long before the BLM was even a twinkle in Big Daddies pants. Its called grandfathering and it should apply to the Bundy family for as long as the Bundy's live there.
Click to expand...

My family has been in the same area for a few decades now. We still do not have the right to use land that we used to have jurisdiction over that has now been purchased by another entity. The supposed "grandfather clause" exists only in Bundy and his supporters minds.
 
ecofarm said:
Cousin Wang? I never heard that one. Sounds like a southern thing.
Click to expand...

Get with the racist times my friend, things have advanced. :lol:
 
American said:
Get with the racist times my friend, things have advanced. :lol:
Click to expand...

Is "cousin wang" a redneck thing in regard to inbreeding or Asians?
 
NIMBY said:
So when BLM, NFS and NPS agents come across Cartels armed to the teeth, you want them to be unarmed,
far less than the common man you believe should be armed to the teeth like SWAT teams and Militias .
Click to expand...


Those agencies can enlist the help of local law enforcement.
 
Kal'Stang said:
The question this brings up is....would the militia have turned out if the BLM hadn't been so aggressive? That's the thing about the government using force. The more they use the more it gets noticed.
Click to expand...

You're forgetting Bundy's defiance and him telling government people he was going to resist.

Resist just a traffic stop sometime, see how far that get's you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom