Will there be blood?

[b_dubb]

No, did he have his sunglasses on?

Perhaps.  Played a wrestler.  What a stretch.

[PB the Deplorable]

My question is why people approve of what amounts to a military action against this rancher.  It's one thing to send a Swat Team into a situation where violence is occurring or about to occur, but really, supporting this action in this particular case?

It seems like the Libs on this thread are the ones supporting these thugs.  Back during the Clinton Administration it was also the Libs who supported the siege at Waco, the siege at Ruby Ridge, and the kidnapping of Elian Gonzalez.  Each of which were gross violations of the civil liberties of the victims.  Is it really just about politics - is it ok when whichever administration doing it is Democrat (Obama now and Clinton in the earlier examples)?  Remember, these are the same people who routinely describe everyone else as 'Nazi's'.

I'd really like to know why this amount of force is necessary, and to be supported.


Here is another unrelated example.  When Bush II wanted to have the phone calls of know terrorists outside the country monitored when they called their cronies here in the US, the Liberals went nuts.  Never mind that they would get subpoenas after the fact and Federal judges were to oversee the activity.  Never mind that the calls had to be monitored immediately in real time or whatever information to be gotten would be lost.

Fast forward to the current administration - collecting and storing all of our emails, recording all of our phone conversations, monitoring our internet activity, photographing the front and back of all our mail, installing cameras and listening posts everywhere, buying weapons and ammo and creating a police force for just about every Federal agency, assisting in the militarization of local police, making plans to fill the sky with spy and attack drones.  And the Libs are all fine with this.  In fact they lend support by claiming it started before Obama.  No it didn't.  Not even close to this extreme.

So if we somehow end up with a Republican President at some point, will the outrage, questions, invective, suspicions, demonstrations, investigative 'reporting' (read:  daily hounding of the Administration) all come back?  Of course it will.

But in the meantime, the unprovoked attacks on private citizens, the saturation spying, the theft of our healthcare plans and all the sleazy rest of it is to be supported?  Until the other party takes over? 

[onan]

My question is why people approve of what amounts to a military action against this rancher.  It's one thing to send a Swat Team into a situation where violence is occurring or about to occur, but really, supporting this action in this particular case?

It seems like the Libs on this thread are the ones supporting these thugs.  Back during the Clinton Administration it was also the Libs who supported the siege at Waco, the siege at Ruby Ridge, and the kidnapping of Elian Gonzalez.  Each of which were gross violations of the civil liberties of the victims.  Is it really just about politics - is it ok when whichever administration doing it is Democrat (Obama now and Clinton in the earlier examples)?  Remember, these are the same people who routinely describe everyone else as 'Nazi's'.

I'd really like to know why this amount of force is necessary, and to be supported.


Here is another unrelated example.  When Bush II wanted to have the phone calls of know terrorists outside the country monitored when they called their cronies here in the US, the Liberals went nuts.  Never mind that they would get subpoenas after the fact and Federal judges were to oversee the activity.  Never mind that the calls had to be monitored immediately in real time or whatever information to be gotten would be lost.

Fast forward to the current administration - collecting and storing all of our emails, recording all of our phone conversations, monitoring our internet activity, photographing the front and back of all our mail, installing cameras and listening posts everywhere, buying weapons and ammo and creating a police force for just about every Federal agency, assisting in the militarization of local police, making plans to fill the sky with spy and attack drones.  And the Libs are all fine with this.  In fact they lend support by claiming it started before Obama.  No it didn't.  Not even close to this extreme.

So if we somehow end up with a Republican President at some point, will the outrage, questions, invective, suspicions, demonstrations, investigative 'reporting' (read:  daily hounding of the Administration) all come back?  Of course it will.

But in the meantime, the unprovoked attacks on private citizens, the saturation spying, the theft of our healthcare plans and all the sleazy rest of it is to be supported?  Until the other party takes over?

the guy has skirted the law for 20 years. I don't have much sympathy for him.

http://www.dailypaul.com/316496/does-bundy-own-the-land-or-is-it-leased-federal-land-to-graze-his-cattle

"On Saturday, April 5 the U.S. Bureau of Land Management BLM) began rounding up the hundreds of cattle owned by rancher Cliven Bundy of Bunkerville, Nevada. The cattle are a mixture of trespass cattle Bundy runs on U.S. public land for which he has no permit and also apparently feral cattle, probably derived from the trespass cattle. In surveys this month, the BLM identified 908 cattle illegally on the scenic, almost 600,000 acre Gold Butte public land area.

When Bundy stopped paying his required grazing fees in 1993, the BLM had authorized him to graze only 152 cattle."

http://www.thewildlifenews.com/2014/04/07/blm-makes-progress-rounding-up-bundys-trespass-cattle/

Conservation interests have been commenting on the Bundy situation. A number of quotes are found in the Elko Daily Free Press, at http://tinyurl.com/p9w6uuo.  For example, Alan O’Neill, former superintendent of the Lake Mead National Recreation Area upon which Bundy’s cattle have also trespassed, said, “The point cannot be lost that Mr. Bundy is an affront and potential danger to the safety of the public servants â€" men and women who have chosen to get into this work because they love the land â€" and the contract wranglers who have been hired to round up the herd,”“For too long, Mr. Bundy’s bullying and threats have stopped the appropriate action in seizing his herd and levying fines. To allow him to continue to flout laws that others adhere to is certainly an affront to all Americans.”

[PB the Deplorable]

I do as well since, as my quote said, it is held in common for the American people whom, I also thought, were more cohesive than a band of states loosely held together.

We were never meant to have an all-powerful overbearing central government.  Political decisions were supposed to take place at the state level.

Our founding fathers feared a runaway central government, claiming more and more power for itself, at the beck and call of special interests - essentially what we have today.  They understood local governments are better prepared to deal with local issues - instead of a national one-size-fits-all top-down bureaucracy, are better able to prioritize, are more responsive, and are more accountable.  The states were to experiment with various ideas, the better ideas would emerge and be emulated by other states and the ones that weren't so good would not.

If only we'd followed that prescription and experimented with ObamaCare in a handful of states instead of creating the national disaster we have now.


The 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution are generally considered to be taken together.  They state that there are more individual rights than those specifically listed in the Bill of Rights (the first 10 Amendments), and that the States and the people retain ALL political power not specifically granted to the Federal government by the Constitution.  How very far we have drifted from these principles.  And not for the better.  The 9th and 10th Amendments have been read completely out of the Constitution by those who favor Big Centralized Government.

The 9th Amendment:  "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people"

The 10th Amendment:  "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited to it by the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"

[onan]

Special interests do as much damage if not more on a local level than at the federal level.

We did have a state that ran Obamacare and it seems to have worked well. And I still believe it will be a good thing for all citizens of the US. I wish it were a single payer plan, but we don't have that.

[PB the Deplorable]

the guy has skirted the law for 20 years. I don't have much sympathy for him...

In that case, wouldn't it follow that we should send tanks into our ghettos?  Looking at the statistics, it appears a large percentage of the people there have been skirting the law for longer than that.  And do so violently, which seems much worse.

Or we could just drop bombs on them, like Democrat Mayor of Philadelphia Wilson Goode ordered his cops to do in 1985 (during the MOVE uprising).

[b_dubb]

In that case, wouldn't it follow that we should send tanks into our ghettos?  Looking at the statistics, it appears a large percentage of the people there have been skirting the law for longer than that.  And do so violently, which seems much worse.

Or we could just drop bombs on them, like Democrat Mayor of Philadelphia Wilson Goode ordered his cops to do in 1985 (during the MOVE uprising).

Wow. Just wow.

Let's start with suburbia. Those privileged shits and their hunger for cocaine.

[PB the Deplorable]

Special interests do as much damage if not more on a local level than at the federal level...

That is not possible.  They might do severe damage in some states on certain issues, but nothing on the scale we see in DC.  The Federal government has it's tentacles in everything everywhere, no state could do that on the scale the Feds do.  We as individuals in a country of this size simply cannot keep up with all the shenanigans going on in a faraway bloated central government - we have a much better chance of keeping up with and reigning in local politicians.

Look how difficult it has been just trying to get information regarding 'Fast and Furious', Benghazi, using the IRS as a political weapon, and the rest of the current sleaze.  State lawmakers would have  much more difficult time covering that kind of stuff up.


Or consider our National Debt - it's what, $18 trillion dollars now.  And that's just the outstanding bonds.  The real National Debt is around $100 Trillion dollars when we add unfunded future Social Security, Medicare, Federal pensions, and now ObamaCare. 

That's a lot of special interests.  The worst of the states are pikers in comparison.

[onan]

In that case, wouldn't it follow that we should send tanks into our ghettos?  Looking at the statistics, it appears a large percentage of the people there have been skirting the law for longer than that.  And do so violently, which seems much worse.

Or we could just drop bombs on them, like Democrat Mayor of Philadelphia Wilson Goode ordered his cops to do in 1985 (during the MOVE uprising).

Well, I think tanks are a bit of overkill. But Clive hasn't been the peaceful rancher bearing no harm, either. By several reports he has used aggressive tactics over the years to forestall legal intervention. It is a shame that behavior wasn't dealt with then.

I fully agree helicopters weren't needed. But several police officers were. If it were me I would have bulldozed his house a decade ago. It is funny how this guy is a hero but some jerk with less than an ounce of marijuana is doing time in tent city getting fed food you wouldn't touch and because it is Sheriff Joe. No one bats an eye about that corrupt justice system. I am so fucking sick of being accused of dullard thought and turning a blind eye when you guys are just as guilty.

Clive hasn't paid for the use of federally protected lands for 20 years. That total could be over a million dollars. He has lost several court battles over that time and still flaunts the law.

Now free speech zones are a topic for debate, where were these militia types before now?

It is late and I am rambling... sorry for that.

One last thing, Reagan created the myth of the welfare queen... Wilma, I believe he named her and stated that this imaginary woman scammed the system for 50 thousand. Clive is a real, flesh and blood welfare cheat at 20 times the amount. I would think that would register with you.

[Mind Flayer Monk]

Fast forward to the current administration - collecting and storing all of our emails, recording all of our phone conversations, monitoring our internet activity, photographing the front and back of all our mail, installing cameras and listening posts everywhere, buying weapons and ammo and creating a police force for just about ... And the Libs are all fine with this.  In fact they lend support by claiming it started before Obama.  No it didn't.  Not even close to this extreme.

But in the meantime, the unprovoked attacks on private citizens, the saturation spying, the theft of our healthcare plans and all the sleazy rest of it is to be supported?  Until the other party takes over?

Republican representative Justin Amash introduced a bill to curb the NSA and it was voted down by the Republican controlled house. Paul Ryan and Michelle Bachman voted to keep the NSA in its current state and its current growth.
The majority of Republicans voted for the NSA in its current form. A majority of Democrats voted to limit the NSA power.

Obama hasn't introduced any bill to grow the NSA and he doesn't control its financing; Congress does.

[fineart]

Who really cares about this? Lets kill the cattle and the overgrown turtles so we can have a Big Ass BBQ.

[Mind Flayer Monk]

But Clive hasn't been the peaceful rancher bearing no harm, either. By several reports he has used aggressive tactics over the years to forestall legal intervention. It is a shame that behavior wasn't dealt with then.

I fully agree helicopters weren't needed. But several police officers were. If it were me I would have bulldozed his house a decade ago.

One of the Bundy protestors crashed a truck into a BLM vehicle. That's how this got so big so fast. How they got away without an assault with a deadly weapon charge is beyond me. The Feds will charge you with assault with a deadly weapon if you offer them an ice cream cone.

[fineart]

Who really cares about this? Lets kill the cattle and the overgrown turtles so we can have a Big Ass BBQ.

I will bring the kegs of beer.

[PB the Deplorable]

... Obama hasn't introduced any bill to grow the NSA and he doesn't control its financing; Congress does.

Obama tends to do whatever he feels like doing.  'If Congress won't act, I will'.  'I have a pen and a phone'.  Etc.

When it comes to 'National Security' we aren't told what's being done, or by who.  Unless a Snowden comes forward.  We do know who's been President, and in control of the executive branch for over 5 years now though. 

[Mind Flayer Monk]

Obama tends to do whatever he feels like doing.  'If Congress won't act, I will'.  'I have a pen and a phone'.  Etc.

No disagreement there on the first part. As for the act part...he seems to like talking from the side lines more than playing in the game. Its pretty obvious the world has figured this out.

[onan]

That is not possible. 

I was projecting to the possibility that states did not answer to the federal government.

[PB the Deplorable]

No disagreement there on the first part. As for the act part...he seems to like talking from the side lines more than playing in the game. Its pretty obvious the world has figured this out.

I think Valerie Jarrett and his 30 some-odd illegal 'czars' have been doing the dirty work behind the scenes.  Probably making the decisions as well.  Still his regime though

[Birdie]

I am sick of hearing people talk about the Constitution like it is some golden, perfect thing with no flaws that would 'save' the country, if only we would adhere to it. The Constitution made it possible for the the government to grow into the behemoth it is today by centralizing all the power. The Anti-Federalists were correct in their concerns:

'The new powerful central government created by the Constitution would slowly absorb all power within its orbit and effectively reduce the states to insignificant players in a powerful new centralized nation state. Antifederalists feared that the new Constitution would create a central state similar to Great Britain’s fiscal/military model. The extensive powers to tax, the provision for a standing army, and the weakening of the state militias would allow this new powerful government to become tyrannical.'

Sounds familiar.
The constitution does not allow for a no-confidence vote to remove politicians mid-term, there is no way to appeal a Supreme Court ruling (or any checks and balances on the Supreme Court at all), it gives the central government the power to tax anyone for anything, and the general wording leaves holes big enough to drive a truck through (or interpret however suits you best). Worst of all, it gives the feds the right to oversee and regulate themselves. That always works out great, right? There is not enough restriction placed on the all encompassing power of the central government created by the constitution. This was done on purpose. The constitution was written by bankers, lawyers and slave holders. I am sure they had the best interests of the common man at the core of their intentions, lol! 

This is the main reason I do not understand the what the fuck the constitution glorifying tea party is talking about half the time or what planet they hail from (including their dumb name- the Boston Tea Party was about taxes and tariffs imposed on a colony and the whole taxation without representation thing doesn't hold water today, except if you live in DC...) Their aims seem to be thwarted by the very document many of them claim they would die for. If you really want smaller government and the return of state's rights, it would be better to throw the constitution out and start over. I am not saying I agree with that idea, just that a little research into history might benefit baggers. I guess you can't expect much from people with signs saying 'keep your gov't hands off my medicare.'

And I cannot figure out what Obama has to do with a land dispute begun 20 years ago. He did not create the tortoise area, he did not create the BLM, what does he have to do with any of this? District courts ruled against Bundy twice and ordered the cattle to be seized, and feds were there to protect the wranglers rounding up the delinquent cattle. Honestly, Obama probably doesn't give a flying shit about some too-big-for-his-britches rancher in Nevada. Quit blaming everything on liberals and the black man. It is beyond old, proven many times over to be inaccurate (even though things like facts fly by right wingers without even ruffling their hair), and just sad and scary obsessive at this point. A new song and dance is badly needed.

[FightTheFuture]

Obama tends to do whatever he feels like doing.  'If Congress won't act, I will'.  'I have a pen and a phone'.  Etc.

When it comes to 'National Security' we aren't told what's being done, or by who.  Unless a Snowden comes forward.  We do know who's been President, and in control of the executive branch for over 5 years now though.

Just read what Sheryl Attkisson has to say. CBS would not permit her to cover Obama like she covered Bush.

The mainstream media is little more than a propaganda wing of the current White House

[Yorkshire pud]

Just read what Sheryl Attkisson has to say. CBS would not permit her to cover Obama like she covered Bush.

The mainstream media is little more than a propaganda wing of the current White House

Oh it's moved on? I didn't get that memo..Okay everyone the topic is no longer a freeloading cowboy but the perenial chestnut of how all media is on the payroll of the Whitehouse. It happens here too.One minute the BBC is a left wing mouthpiece, the next they're apologists for the right. Often stemming from the same news artical. The critical thinkers don't need any partisan mouthpiece to tell them how to feel of course. Speaking of morons, where's Qunt Karl gone again? Missing him already. 

[FightTheFuture]

Mark Levin's excellent book, The Liberty Amendments vigorously addresses some of the shortcomings (and to be fair, there aren't many) of the USC.

Article V  provides for 2 methods of amending the Constitution. Levin argues that the second method would offer the most effective path forward.

The second method involves the direct application of two-thirds of the state legislatures for a Convention for proposing Amendments, which would thereafter also require a three-fourths ratification vote by the states. That would effectively eliminate the US Congress from the equation.

Will it ever happen? I tend to doubt it. But one never knows what the future holds. I have a feeling the American people are growing tired of this administration and it's soft tyranny. The '14 midterms will tell us a lot.

[TheGrimCreeper1]

Oh it's moved on? I didn't get that memo..Okay everyone the topic is no longer a freeloading cowboy but the perenial chestnut of how all media is on the payroll of the Whitehouse. It happens here too.One minute the BBC is a left wing mouthpiece, the next they're apologists for the right. Often stemming from the same news artical. The critical thinkers don't need any partisan mouthpiece to tell them how to feel of course. Speaking of morons, where's Qunt Karl gone again? Missing him already. 

Your ignorance of the American media is woefully pathetic. No one will lay a glove on Obama because he is a black, liberal Democrat whose definition of "fundamental transformation" is to relegate the United States to third world status. I think if Obama had his way, we'd all be working in the rice fields and crapping in holes in the ground.

[PB the Deplorable]

I am sick of hearing people talk about the Constitution like it is some golden, perfect thing with no flaws that would 'save' the country, if only we would adhere to it. The Constitution made it possible for the the government to grow into the behemoth it is today by centralizing all the power. The Anti-Federalists were correct in their concerns:

'The new powerful central government created by the Constitution would slowly absorb all power within its orbit and effectively reduce the states to insignificant players in a powerful new centralized nation state. Antifederalists feared that the new Constitution would create a central state similar to Great Britain’s fiscal/military model. The extensive powers to tax, the provision for a standing army, and the weakening of the state militias would allow this new powerful government to become tyrannical.'

Woodrow Wilson and the early 20th Century 'Progressives' (as they called themselves) thought the Constitution was in the way of their do-gooding.  If only their power was unlimited, think of all the wonderful legislation they could pass. 

In 1913 they pushed through the 17th Amendment, which gave voters the duty of directly electing US Senators.  Before that, US Senators were appointed by the various State governments and went to DC to represent the interests of the States (the House represented the people and were directly elected by them).  That was the check on the Federal government usurping power that belonged to the States - previously, legislation that handed State authority to the national government would not pass in the Senate.  That's part of what had prevented the Federal government from growing into what it is now. 

The 17th Amendment needs to be repealed.  And a whole lot of wasteful, redundant, Unconstitutional programs, agencies, and departments need to be ended and their functions returned to the states to continue or not.

... This is the main reason I do not understand the what the fuck the constitution glorifying tea party is talking about half the time or what planet they hail from (including their dumb name- the Boston Tea Party was about taxes and tariffs imposed on a colony and the whole taxation without representation thing doesn't hold water today...

T.E.A.  Taxed Enough Already.  These are apparently the only people in the country concerned about outrageous tax rates and the grotesque level of spending going on, the annual deficits, and the national debt as they just build and build.  The Democrats aren't.  The Establishment Republicans aren't.  None of it is sustainable and it would be nice if we walked it back in a rational way instead of waiting for a collapse. 

They are the only people against massive bloated unresponsive government.  They don't agree with the hollowing out of the military.

If they aren't the only people concerned about any of this, who else in DC is talking about it?


But what the hell, they're in the way on the road to Utopia, or at least to a Socialist Dictatorship, so lets just trash the hell out of them.  With all this debt we're probably past the tipping point of a future economic collapse anyway.

...  And I cannot figure out what Obama has to do with a land dispute begun 20 years ago...

The BLM ultimately reports to him.  He is responsible and accountable for what the various departments and agencies of the Federal government do.   It's inconceivable they did this without White House approval in advance.  Harry Reid runs Nevada and surely signed off as well.  If the President is as appalled at these tactics as the rest of America is, he needs to call them off.  Maybe he did and that's why they left.  At minimum, the head of the BLM should be fired.

[PB the Deplorable]

... Quit blaming everything on liberals and the black man. It is beyond old, proven many times over to be inaccurate (even though things like facts fly by right wingers without even ruffling their hair), and just sad and scary obsessive at this point. A new song and dance is badly needed.

Who else should be blamed for failed Liberal policies if not the Liberals?

As far as bringing up 'the black man', really?  Is that really all the Libs have is the race card?  Let' go over it again - the Dems are the ones who supported slavery and fought a war to keep it.  They are the party of segregation and Jim Crow.  It was FDR who interned the Japanese, and who appointed the lawyer for the Klan to the Supreme Court.  The Klan were Democrats.  It was the Democrats who filibustered the various Civil Rights Acts of the 50s and 60s.  The D's venerated and just loved Klan leader Robert Byrd and made him the top Democrat in the Senate for years (either Minority Leader or Majority Leader depending on who controlled the Senate) . 

Across America, our big cities including the poor neighborhoods are 100% run by 'Progressive' politicians - they are the ones that drive jobs out with red tape, high taxes, and being soft on crime.  They are the ones providing substandard education to the poorest neighborhoods.  They are the ones providing just enough handouts to keep these people dependent and voting Democrat.

It's the D's who constantly tell poor black kids they can't make it because America is such a racist country.  Destroying all those lives for politics.

So tired of hearing about 'race'.  The 'Progressives' are poisoning the body politic with their lies about it.


The 'Progressives' have taken the Civil Rights movement, hijacked it, and redefined it as Socialism and Big Government.  So now if you oppose big, centralized, authoritarian government, somehow you're against Latinos, African-Americans, women or whoever - fill in the blank.  It's cynical and disgusting.

[Yorkshire pud]

Your ignorance of the American media is woefully pathetic. No one will lay a glove on Obama because he is a black, liberal Democrat whose definition of "fundamental transformation" is to relegate the United States to third world status. I think if Obama had his way, we'd all be working in the rice fields and crapping in holes in the ground.

And you have the temerity to say I'm woefully ignorant? What possible benefit (in your hypothesis) would be gained by Obama or indeed any President (if it were possible) making the US 'third world'? These analogies tend to be made by those who have never been outside their own countries, so they don't actually know what it is they're talking about.

The Presidential election costs the candidates (or rather those bankrolling it) a $billion. ONE billion dollars! Each. The US uses a quarter of the worlds resources and has less than 5% of the worlds population. It has an ongoing space programme. It has massive corporations who own the economy of the USA, and you think all that will be ploughed into paddy fields? Well, assuming of course you got the required climate everywhere. Sure you have 14% adult illiteracy and many million homeless, but that's not just because of Obama, it's been like that long before Obama. His problem is that it isn't sexy enough to make the headlines and so make it a priority. No-one (especially citizens of countries that like to see themselves as the standard by which all should emulate) likes to face up to and tackle such a shadow on their beliefs.
Politicians are by and large in it for themselves, it's how it is, how it's always been...If you don't want politicians dictating what you do, then get rid of the Whitehouse and the entire administration as it stands and  have a collective/co-operative model where everyone has an equal vote on what you do, when you do it, and how it's done. That way the media won't be in anyone's back pocket and you can decide and eliminate bias as and when you see fit to ensure a totally level playing field. The facts and only the facts can be presented with no partisan slant whatsoever.
What many Americans conveniently overlook is that in all other countries 'Republic' is prefixed with 'Peoples' or 'Democratic'. Only in the US is it seen as not being quasi Co-operative/Communist idealism.

[PB the Deplorable]

Oh Pud, I missed your silliness in the politics threads.

[Yorkshire pud]

Woodrow Wilson and the early 20th Century 'Progressives' (as they called themselves) thought the Constitution was in the way of their do-gooding.  If only their power was unlimited, think of all the wonderful legislation they could pass. 

In 1913 they pushed through the 17th Amendment, which gave voters men the duty of directly electing US Senators.  Before that, US Senators were appointed by the various State governments and went to DC to represent the interests of the States (the House represented the people men and were directly elected by them).  That was the check on the Federal government usurping power that belonged to the States - previously, legislation that handed State authority to the national government would not pass in the Senate.  That's part of what had prevented the Federal government from growing into what it is now. 

The 17th Amendment needs to be repealed.  And a whole lot of wasteful, redundant, Unconstitutional programs, agencies, and departments need to be ended and their functions returned to the states to continue or not.



T.E.A.  Taxed Enough Already.  These are apparently the only people in the country concerned about outrageous tax rates and the grotesque level of spending going on, the annual deficits, and the national debt as they just build and build.  The Democrats aren't.  The Establishment Republicans aren't.  None of it is sustainable and it would be nice if we walked it back in a rational way instead of waiting for a collapse. 

They are the only people against massive bloated unresponsive government.  They don't agree with the hollowing out of the military.

If they aren't the only people concerned about any of this, who else in DC is talking about it?


But what the hell, they're in the way on the road to Utopia, or at least to a Socialist Dictatorship, so lets just trash the hell out of them.  With all this debt we're probably past the tipping point of a future economic collapse anyway.

I fixed the first bit for you; Socialist dictatorship is a non sequitur. By definition, it's the people representing themselves for themselves. No one is top dog.

The BLM ultimately reports to him.  He is responsible and accountable for what the various departments and agencies of the Federal government do.   It's inconceivable they did this without White House approval in advance.  Harry Reid runs Nevada and surely signed off as well.  If the President is as appalled at these tactics as the rest of America is, he needs to call them off.  Maybe he did and that's why they left.  At minimum, the head of the BLM should be fired.

The rest of America? You've asked them? All this 'fire them' rant and yet you haven't criticised Bundy at all for trying (and so far succeeding) in sticking the finger to other's who have paid their way? Would you have been of the same mind if as I asked previously he'd been Mexican heritage or native American? Somehow I doubt it.

[Yorkshire pud]

Oh Pud, I missed your silliness in the politics threads.

Thanks for the endorsement PB! I love it when you agree with me. Makes me warm inside.

[PB the Deplorable]

... and yet you haven't criticised Bundy at all...

I'm not sure what to believe.  Obviously the mainstream media isn't going to cover this honestly.  They don't even know how to do that anymore.  Through their lens, this guy comes across as a jerk and a scofflaw, but whether that's true or not it isn't really the issue anymore.  This person and this incident have become symbols, and you know how powerful that can be.

It's become a symbol of the aggression and bullying from the BLM and EPA towards Americans and their land and property rights across the country.  Rightly or wrongly, he is seen as the man standing up to it.  And a certain amount of all this is the boiling over of frustration with the Obama regime.  The guy who was going to bring us all together. 

I'm not saying this is what it should be, just saying that's what it's become.

[Juan]

One small correction that I have to make all the time.  Ruby Ridge occurred during the George H.W. Bush administration, not Clinton's.  The militarization of police forces has been going on for a long time.