• 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’

This isn't coming from the State Legislature but from someone that has a seat in the House of Representitives. Other wise known as the Senate. IE this bill is going through the federal legislative branch. Not state. And they definitely can disarm federal agencies.

I didn't know the House of Representatives was otherwise known as the Senate. Expect DEMs to do the same to this waste of paper as the GOPs did to minimum wage today .
 
This isn't about race. Lets keep race out of it. And whether Bundy is a racist or not is also irrelevent to him refusing to pay the fines and him and the militia standing up to federal agents.. I used Rosa Parks as an example of civil disobediance because most people agree that her civil disobediance was justified. And I know exactly what she was doing. Which is why I used her. The fact that she was fighting against state laws is irrelevent. It doesn't matter whether its a state law or a federal law, justifiied civil disobediance can be used against both.

Now, care to address the actual content of my post instead of going off on a fit because I compared Rosa Parks's civil disobediance to Bundy's civil disobediance?
You brought up Rosa Parks and makes your post about racism in America.
There is no way you picked the Parks case by accident. You thought you were going to play this tricky little race card from up your sleeve.
The irony is that In the Parks case where she defied unconstitutional STATE laws, the FEDS prevailed ... and that illustrates how stupidly anti American this argument for Bundy really is.
How is it that the solution the republicons always offer is to take money away from the poor to solve their problems and give money to the wealthy to solve theirs?
BLM doesn't help cattle ranchers??
Do you understand that the BLM charges about 10% for grazing fees on the land they manage when compared to private land owners ...And the cheap bastard refuses to pay THAT?
He wants FREE grazing so he can accrue his millions in profit faster ... and you support that?
WTF are you thinking?
 
So in your minds eye someone cannot possibly support someone that is racist when the thing being supported has absolutely nothing to do with race or racism? The person that is defending the action that is unrelated to race or racism MUST be racist also? That is quite the narrow view imo. And most defintely flies in the face of reality.

Flying in the face of reality is trying to use the 10th amendment every time you have a problem with the federal gov't. Using the 10th amendment has become another dog whistle for racism, as we see with voting rights, civil rights and RW social engineering .
 
You brought up Rosa Parks and makes your post about racism in America.
There is no way you picked the Parks case by accident. You thought you were going to play this tricky little race card from up your sleeve.

I'll give you one guess as to why people inexplicably supporting a racist would compare him to Rosa.
 
I think the guy is completely full of crap. It's been proven that he lied about his family history. It's been proven he is a racist piece of crap. He's a mooch, a thief and a delusional idiot.

There's one reason to support the scumbag: to show solidarity among racists. It's the same as Truthers sticking up for each other.

The good thing is it shows us who the racists are.

I was not aware that he lied about his family. Could you provide me a link to that?

And seriously, stop making everything about racism. I don't care if he is a racist or not. It's a non-issue to me and always has been. All that it does is make your posts not worthy of even being read much less responded to.
 
I'll give you one guess as to why people inexplicably supporting a racist would compare him to Rosa.

It is possible that some people might support Bundy now because they are crazy anarchist "sovereign citizen" nut-jobs ...But then again those assholes are all tied to white supremacist racists as well.
So yeah ecofarm, I suppose we really only need one guess to get it correct.... Rosa Parks... I still can't f**king believe it!
 
All that it does is make your posts not worthy of even being read much less responded to.

Feel free to stop. It will not make any difference to me.
 
You brought up Rosa Parks and makes your post about racism in America.

No actually it doesn't. Her act of civil disobedience is just as important as the reason that she committed civil disobediance. And I'm pretty sure that she would agree with me on that part.

There is no way you picked the Parks case by accident. You thought you were going to play this tricky little race card from up your sleeve.

Sorry you think that. :shrug: It's not true but....:shrug:

The irony is that In the Parks case where she defied unconstitutional STATE laws, the FEDS prevailed ... and that illustrates how stupidly anti American this argument for Bundy really is.

As I already said, it doesn't matter if its a state or federal law that civil disobediance is used for. If a law is unjust then there should be civil disobediance when all other recourses have failed. It does not matter if its federal or state law.

How is it that the solution the republicons always offer is to take money away from the poor to solve their problems and give money to the wealthy to solve theirs?

This is somehow about rich vs poor now? Republicans vs Democrats? WTH?

BLM doesn't help cattle ranchers??

In Bundy's case they obviously stopped helping him when they wouldn't let him graze cattle on land that he's been using before the BLM was around...all because of a turtle.

Do you understand that the BLM charges about 10% for grazing fees on the land they manage when compared to private land owners ...And the cheap bastard refuses to pay THAT?

Price is irrelevent. Does he refuse to pay his taxes? Does he refuse to pay his land taxes? What gives the BLM the right to charge that fee anyways? They're a government agency. Don't they already get taxpayer money to do what they do? Why should Bundy have to pay twice for the use of land that he'd been using for years?

He wants FREE grazing so he can accrue his millions in profit faster ... and you support that?

I don't care how much he makes. :shrug: You apparently do...why?
 
I was not aware that he lied about his family. Could you provide me a link to that?

.
Here ...
Cliven Bundy Lied About His Family
...and here...
– Historical Records Show Cliven Bundy’s Ancestral Claims Are Lies (VIDEO)
Civil disobedience my ass. Bundy is a freeloading moocher and a racist welfare queen.
The land has been owned by the Federal government since they bought it from Mexico after the war.
The BLM takes a small fee to manage and protect that land for the benefit of others who graze there...and management sometimes means not using land, to prevent over-grazing and subsequent flora and fauna destruction.
Bundy has lost every court case he has taken up with federal and state courts. The litigation has bought him nearly 20 years of freeloading time. The BLM was executing a federal court order that is the direct result of that litigation to pay up past fees and remove the animals.

BTW it was a tortoise not a turtle.
Turtles live in and around water.
 
Last edited:
Ok. Will do. I can't stop you from making stupid assertions.

I'm not the one making stupid assertions. Take a look at the post above yours.

Your racist hero is a liar, a fraud and a thief. And you don't even bother to investigate a little before running to his defense and making comparisons to Rosa. Typical.
 
`
This sounds like a job for the DoD Police......

BF2nMDF.jpg

/sarc
 

*winces* One of those links is from a website that openly states a bias remark in thier web title but it also does not show any proof. You're other link...sorry but I stopped when the the first words on that page were "At the beginning of April tea party terrorists". However I did look for any links that might have been in there to see if they at least provided some sort of proof and did come across a link to a reliable source.....you really should have led off with that.

I-Team: Bundy's 'ancestral rights' come under scrutiny ~ 8 News Now

As such, I withdraw my support as it was based entirely on ancestory.
 
Now that we have that out of our systems I still support what the guy said in the OP quote. As a regulatory agency they should not be going around toting guns.
 
Yes I fully believe that they have a right to defend themselves. But there is a big difference between defending oneself and going in with guns drawn.
I thought it was the protestors and militia that moved in on the BLM camp. At least that's what the pictures show.

Doesn't mean that they should have that. No agency should have that ability if they make regulations unless it is the legislature of a state or the country. Too much conflict of interest. Such enforcements personnel should be seperate as it can create bias.
Well, considering what they have to deal with, a SWAT team seems warranted in some cases. What happens in Vegas doesn't always stay in Vegas....or Mexico.

Have you ever read the Monkey Wrench Gang by Edward Abbey? Abbey is a real hero here. He tried to prevent the government from taking the land, too. But they never attacked or threatened people...only property. Bundy's gang has threatened to hurt people.
 
I thought it was the protestors and militia that moved in on the BLM camp. At least that's what the pictures show.

What they don't show is that the BLM started coming in with guns drawn before the militias were even there. At the time they moved in all they had to contend with is Bundy and his family.

Well, considering what they have to deal with, a SWAT team seems warranted in some cases. What happens in Vegas doesn't always stay in Vegas....or Mexico.

That's what the Police is for. They're the ones that are supposed to be enforcing the laws.

Have you ever read the Monkey Wrench Gang by Edward Abbey? Abbey is a real hero here. He tried to prevent the government from taking the land, too. But they never attacked or threatened people...only property. Bundy's gang has threatened to hurt people.

Nope, never read it. Have heard of it though.
 
What they don't show is that the BLM started coming in with guns drawn before the militias were even there. At the time they moved in all they had to contend with is Bundy and his family.

Bundy was a known liar and thief. He had disobeyed court orders for 20 years. He had declared the federal government as non-existent. By all counts, the guy was a nutbag and a dangerous one. Overwhelming force was justified.

One does not confront "feds don't exist" nutbags with 38s.
 
Bundy was a known liar and thief. He had disobeyed court orders for 20 years. He had declared the federal government as non-existent. By all counts, the guy was a nutbag and a dangerous one. Overwhelming force was justified.

One does not confront "feds don't exist" nutbags with 38s.

I'd rather a small family be confronted with .38's than 20-30 AK-47's. ;) (and yes, I know, those BLM agents didn't use actual AK-47's. It was just to make a point) Besides, the Police have the same weapons available to them that the BLM actually did use. Why not use the police? If the BLM used the police instead of its own little army then they wouldn't have to have their own little army. Which means less taxpayer money spent on something that is redundant and not needed.
 
I'd rather a small family be confronted with .38's than 20-30 AK-47's. ;) (and yes, I know, those BLM agents didn't use actual AK-47's. It was just to make a point) Besides, the Police have the same weapons available to them that the BLM actually did use. Why not use the police? If the BLM used the police instead of its own little army then they wouldn't have to have their own little army. Which means less taxpayer money spent on something that is redundant and not needed.

Who would patrol the streets and deal with local police business while the department was busy dealing with a "feds don't exist" nutbag?

Overwhelming force was justified. Requiring the local PD to put everything on hold (for the majority of a day) to execute a federal court order is not reasonable.
 
Now that we have that out of our systems I still support what the guy said in the OP quote. As a regulatory agency they should not be going around toting guns.
They need to be armed. The ridiculous display of armed anarchy this month is reason enough to support the small law enforcement division of this regulatory bureau. There is a total of 250 of them that are armed ...nationwide. It's not a huge force.
Would you dis-arm the National Forest Service as well?
Considering some of the nut-jobs they have to deal with in wilderness situations, their being armed is a must IMHO.
 
Other police officers. At least that's how its normally done.

The situation required 20-40 officers for the majority of the day. Asking a small local PD to do that is not reasonable. There would have been little to no police presence in the town for a day. The BLM having a squad or two makes these things much easier on local resources.
 
They need to be armed the ridiculous display of armed anarchy this month is reason enough to support the small law enforcement arm of this regulatory bureau. There is a total of 250 of them that are armed ...nationwide. It's not a huge force.
Would you dis-arm the National Forest Service as well?
Considering some of the nut-jobs they have to deal with, their being armed is a must IMHO.

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.
 
The situation required 20-40 officers for the majority of the day. Asking a small local PD to do that is not reasonable. There would have been little to no police presence in the town for a day. The BLM having a squad or two makes these things much easier on local resources.

1: It did not require that many when they first arrived. Yet they arrived with that many. Someone refusing to pay a fee is hardly reason enough to bring 20-40 BLM agents armed to the teeth. There was no indication that Bundy would have been violent before all this started. (now though I'm not sure since his ego has no doubt inflated)

2: The BLM could also very well have used the FBI as an enforcement arm also. Which is my point. There are open avenues available to the BLM to get laws enforced. There is no reason for them to have their own personal police force.
 
Back
Top Bottom