quote:
He's armed and he threatened violence against the gov't before they showed up with the SWAT teams...They told him to remove the cattle. He refused. they told him if he didn't remove the cattle, they would. He threatened violence if they tried it. They came in with overwhelming force to execute the removal of the cattle - and then backed down. I don't see the government acting wrongfully here.

Then you said:

quote:
But why show up with SWAT teams?

The dude obviously leaves the property to go to the local store or whatnot. Apprehend him when he is by himself.

Then I said:

quote:
They don't want to apprehend him, they want to remove his cattle from public lands.

Then you said:

quote:
so now the story changes? I thought they wanted to apprehend the cattle

[if you thought they wanted to apprehend the cattle, as you clearly state here, why did you state above, "Apprehend him when he is by himself."?]

Then I said:

quote:
They want to remove the cattle from public lands...They do NOT want to apprehend Bundy personally

Then you said:

quote:
For fricks sake, its impossible to have an honest debate with you... You change what you are talking about, spin statements, and otherwise ignore anything that doesn't go into your narrative.

It looks to me like I've been consistent in claiming that the feds want to remove the cattle from public lands and that I don't believe they want to apprehend Bundy. I have repeatedly stated this. Can you please indicate in the above exchange where you think I'm being dishonest or inconsistent? tia

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by Lsut81

Member since Jun 2005

80244 posts

Posted on 4/22/14 at 1:07 pm to WildTchoupitoulas

quote:
It looks to me like I've been consistent in claiming that the feds want to remove the cattle from public lands and that I don't believe they want to apprehend Bundy.

No, you are taking posts from different responses and intertwining everything...

I never said "They want to apprehend Bundy"... I was saying that if their goal was a non-confrontational removal of cattle, them apprehending him while they did it was a means to an end.

And when I said "the story changes" in regards to removing the cattle from the land... The operation started off as them confiscating the cattle and planning on selling them to recoup the "Million Dollars" in back fees.

You claimed that they only wanted Bundy to remove his cattle from the land and I was saying that the story was changing if that was the case.

If they only wanted him to removed the cattle from the land, why weren't the feds simply herding them towards his property instead of rounding them up, penning them, and trying to ship them out?

Never mind, don't answer... Whatever you answer is just going to mix up 3-4 different posts and not be along logical lines of thinking.

1 ...

Report Post

Political Talk - Replies to Post

Return To Board

Page 1

Return To Board