re: BLM vs. Nevada Rancher

quote:

---

sweet thanks! for bringing zero to this thread, douchebag

---

Hey, don't blame me because no one seems to be able to grasp my point.
Here's my original post in the thread:

quote:

---

To the OP: There could be something to his claim of watering/forage rights in perpetuity at the granting of the original claim. Bundy may not be breaking the law.

HOWEVER, as far as the federal response, I don't really think you want to go in half-assed against a man who has threatened violence against federal agents, and who doesn't recognize the authority of the federal gov't. and who, in all likelihood has stockpiles of scary black assault rifles - or at least the Constitutional right to have them. ALWAYS go in with overwhelming force. In that way you may get the offender to capitulate without violence. If he believes he has a chance, he may cause unnecessary harm to others and himself. Make his situation appear hopeless.

---

That's pretty fricking straight forward, and yet I've gotten no end of people running around me in circles with their hair on fire.

Bundy may be right, but if he's not, the feds didn't overreact, imo.

What's so fricking hard to understand? And why, based on that post, would you need to get me to look up Bundy's motivations? I mean, wtf? And you think I didn't contribute substance to the thread?

This place is fricking WHACK.