- Joined
- Mar 11, 2009
- Messages
- 41,104
- Reaction score
- 12,202
- Location
- South Carolina
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
That song is from the 40's
Who cares....Still a Communist rant.
That song is from the 40's
And it was a response to America the Beautiful, and frankly This Land is Your Land is my favorite song about America.
I take then that you didnt actually watch the video's or anything?
"The presence of weapons was needed in order to intimidate them." Ammon Bundy
From the video said:2:49
Our intent was peaceful intent, although we did have militia and weapons, and I think that was important because they didn't know for sure if we were going to fire on them. There was that anticipation. our intent was that if they did not, our intent was to make a big enough stink that the sherrif would come in and get it done.
The Bundy's showed up with the militia and guns together, thats enough for me. You can deny their intent till the cows come home but hey whatever dude.
And you're obviously fine with hypocrisy....
Why did Bundy stop paying the fees in 1993? That was the year Bill Clinton took office. This has been a partisan issue from the get go.
And you're obviously fine with hypocrisy....
So ceasing payments wasn't sufficient 'faux outrage'? Are you suggesting that he isn't outraged unless he takes up arms? Seems that's more the government's position than it is Bundy's.
The communist concept of the old song that you libs loved so much in the 60s of "This land is your land, this land is my land...." All bull **** depending on who's boy is in office I see.
Bundy? I wasn't referring to Bundy.
I was simply making an observation about sycophantic government bootlickers and how they would have denounced the militiamen at Concord bridge as nut-jobs and a fanatic fringe element. These extremist fanatics were, after all, bringing arms to bear against government employees over a simple disagreement over public policy.
The communist concept of the old song that you libs loved so much in the 60s of "This land is your land, this land is my land...." All bull **** depending on who's boy is in office I see.
You're new here so ... duh. Hyperbole is a way of life on DP.
So now welfare is bad. :lamo
You exhibit all the worst stereotypes of the tea party, you only operate on anger and outrage, facts be damned. The feds have won this in court a few times, he is a freeloading hypocrite.
Many people assume, since most of the western landscape is given over to livestock production, that ranching must be economically important. But, as economist Thomas Power points out in the opening essay of this section, the livestock industry contributes almost nothing to western economies, even at the local level.
Despite the cowboy's image as a rugged, independent individual, a host of government subsidies keep him propped up in the saddle. The western rancher is dependent on what is, in essence, a welfare program. The much-publicized low fees paid by ranchers to graze federal lands are only the beginning. Other subsidies include taxpayer-supported research at western land grant universities and agricultural exemptions that lower property taxes paid by ranchers. There are handouts to help with nearly every problem: drought relief, low-interest agricultural loans, emergency livestock feed programs, emergency grazing on Conservation Reserve Program lands, to name a few. Even many of the fences crisscrossing the West's "open" spaces are paid for by American taxpayers.
As I said, I'm not talking about Bundy.
Sorry - I just had to quote your whining about hyperbole. Everyone was a newb at some point.Now you really have run out of arguments, your all too self important "seniority" is almost as lame as your argument.
Your seniority does not make you a better poster, but if you need to believe that.....LOL
So I am bad because I support the rule of law and respect the findings from court cases?
You want anarchy, provided it is the anarchy you agree with.
So I am bad because I support the rule of law and respect the findings from court cases?
You want anarchy, provided it is the anarchy you agree with.
And stealing deserves death of everyone, even the innocent in that family, children, the infirm and old. They all deserve to die right?
Sorry - I just had to quote your whining about hyperbole. Everyone was a newb at some point.
Your naivete doesn't make you a good poster either.
Didn't say you were bad.
Here's a question: Would you have supported the rebels at Concord bridge? Would you condemn them as nut-job extremists for stealing government musket and powder?
Not the same. We have a government, we have rules, we have courts. You want anarchy? Move to Somalia.
I'd suggest that y'all read this eminently fair article about the situation before supporting an armed eviction of Cliven Bundy and his cattle.
Why You Should Be Sympathetic Toward Cliven Bundy | Power Line
Good for him. Its a unconstitutional law.
Article 1, Section 2
All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for the protection, security and benefit of the people; and they have the right to alter or reform the same whenever the public good may require it. But the Paramount Allegiance of every citizen is due to the Federal Government in the exercise of all its Constitutional powers as the same have been or may be defined by the Supreme Court of the United States; and no power exists in the people of this or any other State of the Federal Union to dissolve their connection therewith or perform any act tending to impair, subvert, or resist the Supreme Authority of the government of the United States.
So now the right's idea of property rights means the rightful owner of land must surrender their property to the state :lamo
You have a problem with the concept of buying land?
Owned by the federal govt