Reply With Quote
btw, OWS dissenters are still being tried, forced to accept felony charges, long probations, pay legal fees, while this asshole and his impromptu terrorist/"patriot" armed militia walk around free.
You were so sure you knew what happened earlier and claimed such. Were you lying? One can live with being an asshole but to be an asshole and a liar? I pity you.
btw, OWS dissenters are still being tried, forced to accept felony charges, long probations, pay legal fees, while this asshole and his impromptu terrorist/"patriot" armed militia walk around free.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 04-28-2014 at 11:44 AM.
You really are too stupid to figure it out. This is true on many levels. More posturing such as above will be interpreted as more monkey dancing. Watching you flail around is amusing.
Why are you backing away from this statement now?
I find it amusing that you are now wishing me death a bit more discreetly with "DIAF" and "play in traffic". You should probably go back and delete your 2 previous posts where you specifically state you want someone to kill me, even if they were just made in jest. Wouldn't want that those quotes to be read by a few certain people, could get you in to some trouble.
And some advice for the future. Next time someone angers you so much on the Internet that you wish they were dead, try taking a deep breath and logging of your computer for a few days. Go outside and enjoy nature. Eat some pussy or suck a , whatever satisfies you. Do whatever you have to do to rid yourself of your psychotic thoughts.
FOR IMMEDIATE PRESS RELEASE - BUNDY RANGE WAR - 4-25-14
We are trading one form of slavery for another.
What I am saying is that all we Americans are trading one form of slavery for another. All of us are in some measure slaves of the federal government. Through their oppressive tactics of telling the ranchers how many cows they can have on their land, and making that number too low to support a ranch, the BLM has driven every rancher in Clark County off the land, except me. The IRS keeps the people of America in fear, and makes us all work about a third or a half of the year before we have earned enough to pay their taxes. This is nothing but slavery from January through May. The NSA spies on us and collects our private phone calls and emails. And the government dole which many people in America are on, and have been for much of their lives, is dehumanizing and degrading. It takes away incentive to work and self respect. Eventually a person on the dole becomes a ward of the government, because his only source of income is a dole from the government. Once the government has you in that position, you are its slave.
I am trying to keep Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream alive. He was praying for the day when he and his people would be free, and he could say I’m free, free at last, thank God I’m free at last! But all of us here America, no matter our race, are having our freedom eroded and destroyed by the federal government because of its heavy handed tactics. The BLM, the IRS, the NSA--all of the federal agencies are destroying our freedom. I am standing up against their bad and uncons utional laws, just like Rosa Parks did when she refused to sit in the back of the bus. She started a revolution in America, the civil rights movement, which freed the black people from much of the oppression they were suffering. I'm saying Martin Luther King's dream was not that Rosa could take her rightful seat in the front of the bus, but his dream was that she could take any seat on the bus and I would be honored to sit beside her. I am doing the same thing Rosa Parks did--I am standing up against bad laws which dehumanize us and destroy our freedom. Just like the Minutemen at Lexington and Concord, we are saying no to an oppressive government which considers us to be slaves rather than free men.
I invite all people in America to join in our peaceful revolution to regain our freedom. That is how America was started, and we need to keep that tradition alive.
Cliven D. Bundy
https://m.facebook.com/panthers4bund...607094799&_rdr
Black Panthers for Bundy
Wow!
Bundy took over TSA'a account!
Alert the blogosphere!
listen to 1 minute of Bundy's pi ful attempt at speech, and you know he didn't write that. And whoever did write it, wouldn't write it if a Repug were President.
proclaim to start a 'peaceful' revolution against government and that gets you off the hook of what you owe?
He should talk to Wesley Snipes, he has experience on how that works out...
You got a tea potty boner when you read this didn't you?
Ever heard Obama without a teleprompter? Sounds no different. And if Obama doesn't write his own speeches I don't see why you hold Bundy to a higher standard.
I don't support the tea party so no.
I posted this because it is exactly what I said he was trying to convey when I first heard his badly worded comments in the NYT.
Have you sent an offer to be his speech writer? Maybe chief of staff since you know him so well already.
Thanks for posting his letter. I posted an article a few pages back discussing this matter in TX/OK. As I've said all along, this whole thing is much much bigger than Bundy.
I'm thankful that Bundy, while technically in the wrong, has put the spotlight on the actions of the unelected crooked officials of the BLM.
Nevada ‘a side issue’
Asked about Bundy on Thursday, Perry called the Nevada case “a side issue” compared with what’s occurring in Texas.
Meanwhile, Lauren Bean, a spokeswoman for the Texas attorney general’s office, said by email Thursday that Abbott’s letter to the agency was “in no way related to the dispute in Nevada.”
She said that Abbott’s office first received complaints from North Texas cons uents about the Red River case and that its staff has been investigating since.
Still, Abbott followed Perry’s comments with a fundraising email Thursday claiming that the federal government is trying to “seize private property” in Texas.
Abbott’s letter noted that the Bureau of Land Management had proposed a scenario whereby 90,000 acres in the area was ceded to the federal government but that doing so would require congressional approval.
Read more here: http://www.star-telegram.com/2014/04...#storylink=cpy
Then there's the issue of private companies — specifically oil pipeline interests, but also power companies and for-profit toll highway operators — using eminent domain to seize private property, with the state's blessing. In March, the Texas Supreme Court declined to hear a final appeal from northeast Texas landowner Julia Trigg, who refused to sell her land to TransCanada, which used eminent domain to put a leg of the Keystone XL pipeline through her land.
In January, the advocacy group Public Citizen wrote a letter to Abbott that should sound pretty familiar to the attorney general:
As citizens and landowners along the pipeline route, we also are concerned that a foreign company has come to our state, taken private property for corporate profit, and is now planning to operate a pipeline that was found to have a substantial number of potential violations of federal safety regulations. We ask that you, as the attorney general of Texas, use the full arsenal of your cons utional, statutory, and common law powers to protect our property rights and the health and safety of our families. [Public Citizen]
Maybe they should have said they were "deeply concerned."
http://theweek.com/article/index/260...land-grab-talk
we beat the out of the mexicans in the middle of the 19th century and took what is now nevada, utah, arizona, etc for some cash. many of you were taught this several times in the texas school system as it surrounds the formation of our state. the 'first time' that the feds declared it was their land was the treaty of guadalupe hidalgo.
throughout the 19th century there were many homestead acts. most of america is taught this in american history. manifest destiny and all that. those homestead acts were all over with 100 years ago and when in existence they gave small acreages to individuals.
anything not claimed via one of those acts is by default the US federal governments.
this is not the 'first time' the land Bundy is using is been determined to be US land. people seem to construe that because BLM was not around until FDR, suddenly the land prior to that was a free for all. if ti was not claimed during that window then it is still the feds.
the reason why people want to go out to that area now that didn't back then was because of Lake Mead which again was FDR. why do you think they headed out there in the 1940s? ranching in the desert!
For those not wanting to read a drunken lumpkins rant on the TX/OK dispute
http://www.texastribune.org/2014/04/...licated-histo/
I don't drink much at all. In the evenings I am likely stoned though. go drink some antifreeze.
Bundy Ranch 'Oath Keepers Lucky They Didn't Get Shot In The Back For Deserting Bundy Battlefield'
This is an update to my diary yesterday "Bundy Ranch 'Security Chief' Kicks Oath Keepers off Bundy Ranch."
The Oath Keepers weren't too happy when the audio video of Booda Bear (within my diary yesterday) was released and Booda Bear said, among other crazy things:
BOODA BEAR: "I can swear on the white skin that covers my ass there will not be an Oath Keeper -- there WILL NOT BE AN OATH KEEPER allowed to set foot on the internal ranch property."(emphasis Booda Bear, not me)
Sh*t got real, as they say, after yesterday's audio/video declaration by Booda Bear, who is "head of security" circulated. Booda Bear's right and left hand dudes, one named Jerry & I don't know the other one's name, were so pissed they charged the Oath Keepers with "stealing' being "deserters," "traitors" and accused them of committing "treason of the highest order" against Bundy Ranch.
In the real world, where we deal in real facts, this is just a pretend war on a pretend battlefield.
UNKNOWN BUNDY SECURITY LEADER: ...these are things you live by our entire lives. You do not ever leave a man behind on the battlefield. You do not ever turn tail and run in the face of danger. You do not ever leave a man behind to fall into the hands of the enemy and you drive on toward the objective even if you are the last man standing. This is [Oath Keepers leaving Bundy Ranch] is desertion. This is dereliction of duty that was done. Ok. ... Let's put this up to a quick vote. Do we all agree this was desertion?They obeyed a command that is outside of the command structure that they had volunteered to fall under. Which means they don't owe their allegiance to the objectives here because those objectives create a platform that the leadership revolves around ... and If they obey outside leadership that's called being a traitor.
(emphasis mine)
Here's when sh*t got real. One of the 3 heads of Bundy Security Detail, the one whose name I don't know, actually said they, the Oath Keepers, are "lucky you're [Oath Keepers] not getting shot in the back" for deserting Bundy "battlefield."
UNKNOWN BUNDY SECURITY LEADER: ".... but this man and the gentlemen that obeyed that order violated my personal creed. You don't ing walk in and say "I'm sorry' and you're back in brother. You can walk in and say you're sorry and you're lucky you're not getting shot in the back because that's what happens to deserters on the battlefield.
"VOICE IN CROWD: Amen
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/0...d?detail=email
yeah because if SpurTalk has taught us anything, it's that nobody has ever pretended to be a militant black person on the internet.
Ongoing Militia Presence Raises Fears Among Locals Near Bundy Ranch
People in rural southeastern Nevada and the surrounding area are not accustomed to being the center of national media attention, as they have increasingly been since their neighbor, rancher Cliven Bundy, began his notorious standoff with federal authorities. But what bothers them now is the threatening presence of armed militiamen who have taken up semi-permanent residency at Bundy’s ranch.
Some local residents, in fact, are complaining that the militiamen are setting up armed checkpoints and detaining people as they travel to their homes, asking for proof that they live nearby before allowing them to proceed. However, the militiamen themselves deny this, and investigating news crews have not found any evidence of it.
What these locals can say with certainty, though, is that the circus surrounding the standoff and the militias’ refusal to leave is not only disrupting their normally quiet lives, it is costing them money.
Congressman Steve Horsford of Las Vegas has been outspoken in criticizing the militiamen, charging that local residents have been confronted by militiamen who have set up armed checkpoints and demanded that they prove they live in the area before being allowed to pass. Horsford also says the militias have created a “persistent presence” along federal highways and state and county roads.
http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2014/0...r-bundy-ranch/
imagine if black or Hispanics did the same. SWAT teams would take them out immediately
My
How The Cliven Bundy Saga Exposes America's Most Enduring Myth
When the anti-government rancher Cliven Bundy stepped before the cameras to “tell you one more thing I know about the Negro,” he also stepped into far-reaching and noxious American historical myths about self-sufficiency, race, and rugged individualism. Bundy’s actual words - delivered in a Western drawl by a man in cowboy hat and boots, against a backdrop of sagebrush and desert scenery – were mostly the same old “government makes people dependent” arguments that saturate the right-wing blogosphere and FOX News.
But there was something else embedded in Bundy’s observations about "the Negro" that bears mentioning.
Students of the history of the American West have long known that the strong, rugged individualists that populate our movies, TV shows, and myths always depended on government – to give them ownership of their farms and ranches, to subsidize private corporations like railroads for access to markets, for federal troops for protection from Indians, and federally funded dams and canals for irrigating their fields and sustaining their livestock and towns.
The idea that Bundy’s pioneer ancestors somehow made their fortunes (“built that”) without any help, before the invention of government assistance, the Bureau of Land Management or federal regulations, is preposterous.
Bundy’s claims also echoed Mitt Romney’s “47 percent” remarks to wealthy contributors during the 2012 campaign, when the Republican nominee intimated that nearly half of Americans believe they are victims and en led to a range of government support to which they have become dependent. But Romney’s division of Americans into “makers” and “takers” gets a lot more complicated if you examine our country’s complex history of clearing, settling and subduing the West.
The question of what to do with the nearly unfathomable bounty of public lands west of the Mississippi River (land both bought and conquered by the United States at the expense of Native Americans) roiled our nation’s politics almost exactly 150 years ago. In May 1862, the first Republican President – Abraham Lincoln – signed the Homestead Act, passed by a Republican Congress only after Southern representatives had resigned their seats and their states seceded from the Union (the legislation was rightly viewed by Southerners as profoundly anti-slavery, since a West settled by independent proprietors would always vote to keep slaveholders out).
The Homestead Act was one of the most far-reaching and important pieces of legislation ever enacted in the United States. It was also undeniably a massive (and successful) social welfare program. It gave an applicant ownership – at no cost! – of farmland made up of 160 acres of undeveloped federal land. The land wasn’t what some on the libertarian right would archly call a “handout”: a would-be homesteader was required to file an application, improve the land by building fences and structures, and, after five years’ residency and toil, file for a permanent deed of le. But it was a government program designed both to settle the West with farmers and ranchers and to dispose of the public lands. “Winners” were undoubtably picked.
In a remarkably bold and broad stroke, homesteads were technically made available to all heads of household who had never taken up arms against the U.S. government, so claimants could include women, immigrants who intended to become citizens, and ex-slaves. Eventually the federal government granted 1.6 million homesteads and distributed 270,000,000 acres (420,000 sq. mi) of federal land for private ownership between 1862 and 1934, a total of 10 percent of all lands in the United States. But as anyone who has read Little House on the Prairie or O Pioneers! knows, making it on the Great Plains or in the Mountain West as a homesteader was difficult work. Blizzards, grasshoppers, withering droughts, financial panics, and plain old bad luck prevented a full 60 percent of those filing claims from successfully “proving up” and taking ownership of their land.
African American homesteaders
Those who were successful tended not to be the urban working class, formerly-enslaved blacks, or the indigent (the parts of society the originators of the homestead laws had in mind in the 1840s and 50s). Instead, when the program really got going in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, it was immigrants from Europe who joined farmers from the Ohio and Mississippi valleys in populating the plains and West with homesteads. Making a farm work required significant agricultural know-how, and enough capital to get to your claim, buy seed, acquire tools, and put up a surplus in case of hard times. These factors all discriminated against the extremely poor, which included most people of color.
The government offered several revisions and updates to the original Homestead Act after 1862, including a Southern Homestead Act of 1866 (a failed program intended to turn ex-slaves and sharecroppers into landowners), the Enlarged Homestead Act of 1909 (enacted to enable dryland farming in the Plains and Mountain West), the Stock-Raising Homestead Act of 1916 (to allow ranchers 640 acres of land for grazing purposes instead of the normal 160).
In the last century several different models were tried to encourage ranchers like Bundy’s ancestors to use public lands – property owned by all Americans, in common – to graze cattle, including the U.S. Grazing Service (a creation of the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934) and today’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM), founded in the 1940s. Both federal agencies installed token costs per head of livestock called a grazing fee, and issued grazing permits that were periodically renewed.
Cliven Bundy tore up his grazing permit in 1992 because he disagreed with its terms. Since that time he has grazed his cattle with no permit on government lands. This makes him worse than a “moocher” – it makes him a trespasser, on property that every one of us owns in common.
The two most visible legacies of the Homestead Act and its successors remain our nation’s huge rural middle class and the checkerboard grid of quarter-sections you can see from the window of an airplane flying seven miles up. But a third can be found hidden in our current, still-unresolved debates about race and the role of government.
Jonathan Earle is associate professor of history and director of the University of Kansas’ Honors Program.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/cliven-bundy-homestead-act-history
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
