Another Ruby Ridge on the Horizon?

[icanthearyou 4,462]

So were the colonists considered rational? Probably not by those in Britain. They probably thought the same way about these crazy colonists as you feel about the Bundys.

What's your point?

And, do you believe in the rule of law or not?

You really can't understand my point? I've explained it several times.

Really? Well I guess I missed it. But I'll take a stab at it:

"Anyone who refuses to pay a debt on principle (as defined by themselves) is morally and legally equivalent to the founders of the country."

Did that catch it?

(P.S.: Do you believe in the rule of law or not?)

Do you have unqualified faith in the rule of law?

[Weegle777 78]

So were the colonists considered rational? Probably not by those in Britain. They probably thought the same way about these crazy colonists as you feel about the Bundys.

What's your point?

And, do you believe in the rule of law or not?

You really can't understand my point? I've explained it several times.

Really? Well I guess I missed it. But I'll take a stab at it:

"Anyone who refuses to pay a debt on principle (as defined by themselves) is morally and legally equivalent to the founders of the country."

Did that catch it?

(P.S.: Do you believe in the rule of law or not?)

Don't act like TT now. You are better than that. I believe in the law until it conflicts with my convictions and beliefs.

[homersapien 11,373]

So were the colonists considered rational? Probably not by those in Britain. They probably thought the same way about these crazy colonists as you feel about the Bundys.

What's your point?

And, do you believe in the rule of law or not?

You really can't understand my point? I've explained it several times.

Really? Well I guess I missed it. But I'll take a stab at it:

"Anyone who refuses to pay a debt on principle (as defined by themselves) is morally and legally equivalent to the founders of the country."

Did that catch it?

(P.S.: Do you believe in the rule of law or not?)

Don't act like TT now. You are better than that. I believe in the law until it conflicts with my convictions and beliefs.

Actually, I was just thinking how unlike you it was to weasel. You are better than than.

Anyway, since I have (apparently) finally winkled out your point, we'll just agree to disagree.

I do not think that anyone who refuses to pay their debts - or taxes - is entitled to do so without expecting sanctions. In this case, he should remove his damn cattle from the federal lands and pay whatever fees he owes, plus any fines, or be arrested for failing to do so.

[homersapien 11,373]

So were the colonists considered rational? Probably not by those in Britain. They probably thought the same way about these crazy colonists as you feel about the Bundys.

What's your point?

And, do you believe in the rule of law or not?

You really can't understand my point? I've explained it several times.

Really? Well I guess I missed it. But I'll take a stab at it:

"Anyone who refuses to pay a debt on principle (as defined by themselves) is morally and legally equivalent to the founders of the country."

Did that catch it?

(P.S.: Do you believe in the rule of law or not?)

Do you have unqualified faith in the rule of law?

Yes. What's the alternative other than total anarchy?

(Please note that you didn't refer to any specific law, but to the concept of the rule of law. There's a difference.)

[Elephant Tipper 430]

I just listened to Bundy speak on the radio for about 20 minutes with Glenn Beck. As much as I would want to support this guy he makes doing so most difficult. If indeed he represented himself before the courts he was a fool. He could not make his argument clear nor concise without help from GB, that is, clear enough to easily garner support. He may have (had) an argument and the locals may understand it, but he is negating it with his lack of ability to describe to the people what is happening. Many innocent people have put their lives in jeopardy for this man who may actually be foolhardy.

As far as the BLM, they have equally been foolish in how they handled this matter. If you put a "policy" man in charge of the BLM who has only a year's experience in that department and who has never run ANY governmental dept, then disaster looms and we almost witnessed that this weekend.

Also, so far as the issue of HReid and the green agenda, I believe it is the undercurrent of this land grab in Clark Co., NV.

What happens next will be interesting.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

So were the colonists considered rational? Probably not by those in Britain. They probably thought the same way about these crazy colonists as you feel about the Bundys.

What's your point?

And, do you believe in the rule of law or not?

You really can't understand my point? I've explained it several times.

Really? Well I guess I missed it. But I'll take a stab at it:

"Anyone who refuses to pay a debt on principle (as defined by themselves) is morally and legally equivalent to the founders of the country."

Did that catch it?

(P.S.: Do you believe in the rule of law or not?)

Do you have unqualified faith in the rule of law?

Yes. What's the alternative other than total anarchy?

(Please note that you didn't refer to any specific law, but to the concept of the rule of law. There's a difference.)

That is quite a bit of faith in mere words on paper. What happens when those words no longer reflect fair, honorable, and ethical principles? Anarchy? What happens when those who write the laws are no longer honorable and ethical? Anarchy? Oppression followed by anarchy? What happens when the "rule of law" only applies to those without power? Are there any fundamental principles that trump the "rule of law"?

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Ask Eric Holder.

[AUisAll 2]

So were the colonists considered rational? Probably not by those in Britain. They probably thought the same way about these crazy colonists as you feel about the Bundys.

What's your point?

And, do you believe in the rule of law or not?

You really can't understand my point? I've explained it several times.

(P.S.: Do you believe in the rule of law or not?)

Oh, the irony in this question considering it is coming from one of Obamas sheeple. Obama is destroying the rule of law along with Holder and Lerner who are both in contempt of Congress. Not to mention Obama and Holder have both said they have discretion on which laws they enforce.

[Elephant Tipper 430]

This Bundy fellow has almost led many people to their deaths. In listening to various people speak, one mentioned that the pro-Bundy group had decided to put women on the front line in case the feds began shooting so they would receive negative publicity. The feds have previously held off any intervention because Bundy had made the statement that he "would do whatever it takes to defend his cattle" and this would become a Waco situation. With Kornze being confirmed the hold off changed. Kornze almost willingly fulfilled the Waco scenario when he brought in snipers and other heavy firepower which precipitated the convergence of other ranchers to defend Bundy.

Other ranchers have been paid by the federal govt to abandon their grazing rights and did so peaceably, but Bundy has held out and asserted that he did not recognize the federal govt's right to be involved. He only recognized the state of NV, hence, he paid his fees to NV, not the BLM. As pointed out by one speaker, the "federal govt has the right to nuke NV", and they have.

The solar farm issue with the Chinese plant died about a year ago, but apparently HReid has been riding the line of ethical/unethical very narrowly in trying to fulfill its creation.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

ET.......do you believe if Bundy gives in that the land will truly revert to the BLM as public land or end up in the hands of Reid or some crony LLC he is the primary partner in?

After all Reid has no shame. He was on a roll criticizing the Koch brothers until it was determined he had accepted money from them in the past.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

I didn't know that PT. What does that say about Reid? What does that say about the Koch brothers? More importantly, what does that say about government and politics?

[homersapien 11,373]

So were the colonists considered rational? Probably not by those in Britain. They probably thought the same way about these crazy colonists as you feel about the Bundys.

What's your point?

And, do you believe in the rule of law or not?

You really can't understand my point? I've explained it several times.

Really? Well I guess I missed it. But I'll take a stab at it:

"Anyone who refuses to pay a debt on principle (as defined by themselves) is morally and legally equivalent to the founders of the country."

Did that catch it?

(P.S.: Do you believe in the rule of law or not?)

Do you have unqualified faith in the rule of law?

Yes. What's the alternative other than total anarchy?

(Please note that you didn't refer to any specific law, but to the concept of the rule of law. There's a difference.)

That is quite a bit of faith in mere words on paper. 1) What happens when those words no longer reflect fair, honorable, and ethical principles? 2) Anarchy? 3) What happens when those who write the laws are no longer honorable and ethical? 4) Anarchy? 5) Oppression followed by anarchy? 6) What happens when the "rule of law" only applies to those without power? 7) Are there any fundamental principles that trump the "rule of law"?

1) You get the law changed or repealed as provided by constitutional processes.

2) No, of course not.

3) You vote them out of office or impeach them as provided by constitutional processes.

4) and 5) No, of course not

6) See response 1. Failing that, I suppose revolution is an option, but unless you are an anarchist, you will still have to implement the rule of law afterwards.

7) In the context of having a functional, civil society, I can't think of one.

Apparently, you still don't quite get it. Rule of law is conceptual. It transcends any given law - or "words on a piece of paper" as you put it.

[autigeremt 6,619]

Looks like there could be a change in tact by the Feds and Police.

http://benswann.com/exclusive-sources-inside-the-blm-and-las-vegas-metro-say-feds-are-planning-a-raid-on-bundy-home/

[homersapien 11,373]

So were the colonists considered rational? Probably not by those in Britain. They probably thought the same way about these crazy colonists as you feel about the Bundys.

What's your point?

And, do you believe in the rule of law or not?

You really can't understand my point? I've explained it several times.

(P.S.: Do you believe in the rule of law or not?)

Oh, the irony in this question considering it is coming from one of Obamas sheeple. Obama is destroying the rule of law along with Holder and Lerner who are both in contempt of Congress. Not to mention Obama and Holder have both said they have discretion on which laws they enforce.

LOL!!!

Well I guess you don't get it either. That was a totally mindless post. It brings to mind the question asked in another thread about who is dumb or lazy enough to have the right to vote?

But it's hilarious to see a self-professed "conservative" arguing against the rule of law of all things.

[AUFAN78 3,895]

True TT but, Mr. Bundy's ancestors had free access to that very land back then.

Free rides usually come to an end.

What? I have to give up my obamaphone?

[AURaptor 1,123]

The Bundy family seems to have chosen a poor path to take, but that doesn't mean the govt should respond like frelling storm troopers.

[TexasTiger 12,868]

True TT but, Mr. Bundy's ancestors had free access to that very land back then.

Free rides usually come to an end.

What? I have to give up my obamaphone?

I'm not referring to mythical objects.

[AUDub 11,148]

Hey, ICHY. I found a relatively objective article on the subject from a source from which I would have never expected it.

[Elephant Tipper 430]

Hey, ICHY. I found a relatively objective article on the subject from a source from which I would have never expected it.

Posts 130 and 134 refer to this. The audio from GB's interview this a.m. helped understand Bundy better:

http://www.theblaze....eral-authority/

Starting at 4:45 through the end helps clarify, in Bundy's own words, what he believes and why this dilemma exists.

Bundy was difficult to understand as even the hosts from the following program noted, partly Bundy not enunciating and partly his phone.

The people who have helped him at one point put women on the front line in anticipation of the feds shooting. They wanted the publicity from women being shot.

Bundy may at one point along the past 20 years have had a legitimate argument but now is Waco and his sheep were almost being led to slaughter.

What? I have to give up my obamaphone?

I'm not referring to mythical objects.

Still eating that UpDyke Dreamland bbq I see.

[AUFAN78 3,895]

True TT but, Mr. Bundy's ancestors had free access to that very land back then.

Free rides usually come to an end.

What? I have to give up my obamaphone?

I'm not referring to mythical objects.

Ha! But I trust your wise enough to have gotten the point.

[AUDub 11,148]

...The people who have helped him at one point put women on the front line in anticipation of the feds shooting. They wanted the publicity from women being shot.

Bundy may at one point along the past 20 years have had a legitimate argument but now is Waco and his sheep were almost being led to slaughter....

Do a little research on the kind of folks that offered to render aid to Mr. Bundy. There's not a doubt in my mind that another Waco is exactly what they wanted.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Do a little research and see who was behind this whole thing. Hint......Harry________.

[autigeremt 6,619]

I do find it interesting that so called public land really isn't public at all. If the government owns it it's no longer public land. It's land for lease.

[AUDub 11,148]

Do a little research and see who was behind this whole thing. Hint......Harry________.

You forgot "IMO"

[Elephant Tipper 430]

..lThe people who have helped him at one point put women on the front line in anticipation of the feds shooting. They wanted the publicity from women being shot.

Bundy may at one point along the past 20 years have had a legitimate argument but now is Waco and his sheep were almost being led to slaughter....

Do a little research on the kind of folks that offered to render aid to Mr. Bundy. There's not a doubt in my mind that another Waco is exactly what they wanted.

Here's your research. Post #134