- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Tensions rise in Nevada-snipers,1st am zones,no fly zones used and in effect
Posted on 4/12/14 at 11:26 am to Rex
Posted on 4/12/14 at 11:26 am to Rex
Like I said, dishonest and incapable. You have failed to address several points because they "annihilated" your positions. I find it wonderfully poetic.
1
Posted on 4/12/14 at 11:28 am to Paluka
You're so delusional.
Your WISHES about how things should be in Nevada are not debate points. You've lost on every point of law and fact.
This post was edited on 4/12/14 at 11:30 am
Posted on 4/12/14 at 11:28 am to Rex
He had the right to defend himself and his property, and he also has the right to state publicly that he will defend himself .... Am i correct in saying that you and your kind just dont like that type of person?
Posted on 4/12/14 at 11:28 am to Rex
These are not "In the past" as stated by your alter lawyer. These are recent comments. He also does own HIS land (not the fed land where his cattle graze).
I hope out in that desolate place he does carry a gun.
I hope out in that desolate place he does carry a gun.
Posted on 4/12/14 at 11:30 am to fleaux
quote:
Am i correct in saying that you and your kind just dont like that type of person?
For people that constantly preach privacy, it's amazing how little they follow that when the gov't comes for private property...
Posted on 4/12/14 at 11:31 am to fleaux
The question was whether or not he has threatened violence, not whether or not he has a right to speak or defend himself.
Posted on 4/12/14 at 11:33 am to Rex
quote:
The question was whether or not he has threatened violence, not whether or not he has a right to speak or defend himself.
Perhaps his "threatened violence" was in defense of himself.
Posted on 4/12/14 at 11:33 am to Rex
Right, and him telling Laura Ingraham or anyone else that he has a shotgun an isn't afraid to use it isn't a threat of violence , its a statement that he will defend himself and his property
Posted on 4/12/14 at 11:38 am to Rex
You have no idea what delusion is because you cannot see past your won.
Is he a deadbeat?
Has he refused to pay the fines to the state or county?
Have you read the court documents yet? Will you be able to find them and access them?
His position is quite deliberate. Agree or disagree?
What about my use of the voter I.D. laws and your own position on them?
Why have the feds violated his first amendment rights?
Did you know the county sheriff can make the feds leave legally?
Did you know it is illegal for the feds to be pointing weapons at this guy from afar?
How many more laws have been violated by the feds in this situation than the Bundy guy? Care to guess?
Posted on 4/12/14 at 11:38 am to fleaux
quote:
Right, and him telling Laura Ingraham or anyone else that he has a shotgun an isn't afraid to use it isn't a threat of violence
Not to a loopy headed liberal. To them, even mentioning a gun is a threat of violence.
Posted on 4/12/14 at 11:41 am to Salviati
quote:
However, over that course of time the feds have canceled plans to round up the cattle many times because Bundy threatened violence.
Perhaps you should re-state this in a clear manner. Your present statement implies to many that he has threatened violence in the past. This is not true. He has stated that he would defend himself recently not at any other times.
Posted on 4/12/14 at 11:41 am to Alahunter
Fox News just reported BLM has said it's over and they are pulling out due to safety concerns
Posted on 4/12/14 at 11:42 am to FelicianaTigerfan
quote:
Fox News just reported BLM has said it's over and they are pulling out due to safety concerns
Good
BLM can go pound sand(which there is plenty of in Nevada)
Posted on 4/12/14 at 11:44 am to FelicianaTigerfan
quote:
Fox News just reported BLM has said it's over and they are pulling out due to safety concerns
Never should have been there. If this had not gone viral, I have no doubt there would have been violence and it would have been whitewashed.
Posted on 4/12/14 at 11:45 am to SSpaniel
quote:
Not to a loopy headed liberal. To them, even mentioning a gun is a threat of violence.
Cue Rex "He told the Las Vegas Sun that he keeps firearms and will do whatever it takes to defend what is his. His wife told the Sun that she has a loaded shotgun and is prepared to use it. When Laura Ingraham asked if he would resort to violence to settle the dispute, Bundy said, "I didn't say I wouldn't carry a gun."
Posted on 4/12/14 at 11:47 am to Salviati
quote:
Nevada did not acquire title to the land upon becoming a state. In short, the State of Nevada does not own the land at issue.
Does this mean that people living on the 85% don't have to pay Nevada real estate tax? I would think not if Nevada doesn't own it. Just asking.
Posted on 4/12/14 at 11:48 am to Paluka
Is he a deadbeat? Yes.
Has he refused to pay the fines to the state or county? Irrelevant.
Have you read the court documents yet? No.
Will you be able to find them and access them? I have no desire to read them. News agency summations are sufficient.
His position is quite deliberate. Agree or disagree? Deliberate, self-serving, and legally unsustainable.
What about my use of the voter I.D. laws and your own position on them? Not relevant to this thread.
Why have the feds violated his first amendment rights? For their own safety, obviously. I never said I agreed with the use of their "first amendment zones", but that matter is irrelevant to the question of whether or not he's entitled to graze his cattle on Federal land.
Did you know the county sheriff can make the feds leave legally? Irrelevant to the matter of whether or not Bundy is entitled to graze his cattle on Federal land.
Did you know it is illegal for the feds to be pointing weapons at this guy from afar? No, it's not, but nobody has established that as a fact, anyway. Nor is it relevant to the matter of whether or not Bundy is entitled to graze his cattle on Federal land.
How many more laws have been violated by the feds in this situation than the Bundy guy? Care to guess? No, I do not care to guess.
It's quite hilarious what you consider "points" within the debate over whether Mr. Bundy is in the legal right over the grazing issue and the impound of his cattle. Are you going to quote the price of tea in China next?
Has he refused to pay the fines to the state or county? Irrelevant.
Have you read the court documents yet? No.
Will you be able to find them and access them? I have no desire to read them. News agency summations are sufficient.
His position is quite deliberate. Agree or disagree? Deliberate, self-serving, and legally unsustainable.
What about my use of the voter I.D. laws and your own position on them? Not relevant to this thread.
Why have the feds violated his first amendment rights? For their own safety, obviously. I never said I agreed with the use of their "first amendment zones", but that matter is irrelevant to the question of whether or not he's entitled to graze his cattle on Federal land.
Did you know the county sheriff can make the feds leave legally? Irrelevant to the matter of whether or not Bundy is entitled to graze his cattle on Federal land.
Did you know it is illegal for the feds to be pointing weapons at this guy from afar? No, it's not, but nobody has established that as a fact, anyway. Nor is it relevant to the matter of whether or not Bundy is entitled to graze his cattle on Federal land.
How many more laws have been violated by the feds in this situation than the Bundy guy? Care to guess? No, I do not care to guess.
It's quite hilarious what you consider "points" within the debate over whether Mr. Bundy is in the legal right over the grazing issue and the impound of his cattle. Are you going to quote the price of tea in China next?
Posted on 4/12/14 at 11:48 am to FelicianaTigerfan
quote:
Fox News just reported BLM has said it's over and they are pulling out due to safety concerns
Thank goodness! I hope this situation is now actually addressed in a reasonable manner. To me, that means addressing state's rights and limiting of the federal government. I hope Bundy keeps up his fight against the feds.
Posted on 4/12/14 at 11:52 am to Paluka
Tyrants need State-friendly laws. Check.
Tyrants need friendly courts .Check.
Tyrants need enforcement thugs. Check.
Tyrants need the citizenry to feel fear. Check.
Tyrants need those who will defend the indefensible to cover for them. Check.
The sad thing about all this is that it could easily be resolved with a few days of common sense arbitration. Instead the State has set it's site on total destruction. It has the full power of State coercion, and intends to use it. And has no shame about abdicating it's authority elsewhere in the service of partisan political power.
The game is fixed. The Individual must be CRUSHED. The State must prevail.
Forward !
Tyrants need friendly courts .Check.
Tyrants need enforcement thugs. Check.
Tyrants need the citizenry to feel fear. Check.
Tyrants need those who will defend the indefensible to cover for them. Check.
The sad thing about all this is that it could easily be resolved with a few days of common sense arbitration. Instead the State has set it's site on total destruction. It has the full power of State coercion, and intends to use it. And has no shame about abdicating it's authority elsewhere in the service of partisan political power.
The game is fixed. The Individual must be CRUSHED. The State must prevail.
Forward !
Posted on 4/12/14 at 11:57 am to Lsupimp
Looks like the Militias worked. Maybe that's the answer to an ever far reaching Gov't..??
Page 24 of 30
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News