Well, at least I'll make it fun and interesting:
Don't bleed on me, Rogers.
Posted on 04/22/2014 6:56:08 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Senior writer John McCormack joined Greta van Susteren's political panel Monday on Fox News to discuss the protest at the Bundy ranch in Nevada. Watch the video below:
(VIDEO-AT-LINK)
Meanwhile, in this week's issue, the Scrapbook writes about the problems with Cliven Bundy's cause:
Twenty years ago, the federal government, which owns the land on which Bundy grazes his 900 cattle, decided to impose a grazing fee. Bundy opposes that fee, has consistently refused to pay it, and the federal Bureau of Land Management now claims that he owes $1 million in unpaid fees. Bundy has challenged the grazing fee in federal court—indeed, has challenged the federal government’s title to land in Nevada—and has consistently lost. Sixteen years ago, a federal judge issued a permanent injunction against Bundy, ordering the removal of his cattle. Bundy appealed that ruling to the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, and lost again. Last August, a federal court gave Bundy 45 days to remove his cattle, and in October, a federal district judge ordered Bundy not to “physically interfere with any seizure or impoundment operation.”
This does not sound to The Scrapbook like the dread hand of tyranny, in Nevada or Washington, oppressing an innocent farmer, or pushing some law-abiding citizen around. It sounds, instead, like a rancher gaming the system to his own financial advantage, and disguising his scheme in populist rhetoric: refusing to pay a tax which others must pay, and “tying up the courts”—for two decades!—as he continues to ignore the law. Far from acting in an arbitrary or capricious manner, the federal government has shown patience and forbearance in the face of lawlessness that customarily lands people in jail. It is worth noting that Bundy’s rancher-neighbors and the Nevada Cattlemen’s Association, who contend with the same federal policies, offer him little support.
Bundy has exercised his First Amendment right to plead his case publicly and inflame his admirers. And inflamed they have been: A few hundred people from around the country converged on Nye County, Nevada—many armed and brandishing weapons—to disrupt the government’s attempt to enforce the law, taunting and attacking agents dutifully carrying out the orders of a federal court. Last week, fearful of violence, the BLM suspended its roundup and withdrew from the area.
This is no victory for anyone other than Bundy and, The Scrapbook hopes, a temporary one at that. There is a term to describe the people who surround him, and it isn’t “militia.” The word is “mob.” And what this mob has practiced is not civil disobedience but armed provocation of a democratic government which has afforded Cliven Bundy every right and privilege as a citizen. One of Bundy’s supporters boasted to the press that “we were actually strategizing to put all the women up at the front.” This is the same spirit that animates people who attack firemen during riots, or opposed school integration with violence in Little Rock, Arkansas. In that case, 57 years ago, President Eisenhower was obliged to send the 101st Airborne because, as he said, “mob rule cannot be allowed to override the decisions of our courts.”
What was true then remains true today. Cliven Bundy is no hero of any kind. No conservative would pick and choose the laws he intends to obey, defy the rest, and challenge the rule of democracy with guns. No hero would adopt the terrorist’s tactic of placing innocents in harm’s way. Any fool can pick up a weapon and aim at an officer of the law; the moral power of civil disobedience lies in the willingness to defer to the law and accept punishment on principle.
Scum like you deserves no respect at all! STFU and leave FR.
You're a King's man.
No outrage, or extensive research about government criminal thugs strong-arming ranchers and intimidating witnesses, but thousands of words attacking little rancher guys Bundy & Hage.
Nary a whisper about the "swarms of Washington Officer-bureaucrats" who fly to Reno "to harass our people, and eat out their substance.":
...with a cadre of agency heads from Washington, D.C., regional and state offices turning up in Reno to defend their policies and employees in court.
No problem with the Lords from Washington blowing a hundred grand or two on a joy-ride to Reno, eh, Mr Rogers?
But HEY!!! "Bundy is a grazing fees deadbeat!!!" "Hage is a grazing fees deadbeat!!!"
Not a word of outrage about Hage facing bogus felony charges for clearing a ditch (Cliven Bundy, however, DID show up to support Wayne Hage at his felony trial).
You had nothing to say about USFS Region 4 Director Harv Forsgren lying to a federal judge.
Yet you could post reams and reams of info about the various Bundy court cases, and the favorite of the government shills, "The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo".
Just go away, government shill.
You once again LIE about what I’ve posted. From this thread, and TO YOU:
Is Bundy’s Protest Tarnishing the Tea Party? (Weekly Standard jumping the shark?)
Wednesday, April 23, 2014 7:14:52 AM · 171 of 202
Mr Rogers to kiryandil
Actually, Bundy refused to sign the lease and pay the money because he said the federal government did not own the land. He wrote multiple letters to the BLM to that effect in 1993. For example, “Bundy responded by sending a Constructive Notice and Order to Stop, in which he again questioned the United States’ authority to manage the Allotment. See Exhibit 28 to #11.”
However, when I talk to people about this, I point out that a government that prevents Arizona law enforcement from helping arrest illegal immigrants, and that prosecutes the Maricopa sheriff for trying to slow illegal immigration, has no business using federal SWAT teams to go after trespassing cows! Who is trespassing more - a foreign citizen who comes to the US illegally, or a cow eating grass it hasn’t paid for? And why do alphabet agencies like the BLM need their own SWAT teams? Why not just put a lien against the cattle?
I also argue that a government which refuses to obey its own laws, such as repeatedly encouraging companies to violate Obama’s own healthcare law, has no business accusing ANYONE of disrespecting the rule of law!
We then can talk about the 20+ year policy of turning public lands into “no humans land”, and by the time we finish, most folks fully understand Bundy’s frustration and how angry people are.
Perhaps you can explain how that can be summarized as: “No problem with the Lords from Washington blowing a hundred grand or two on a joy-ride to Reno, eh, Mr Rogers? But HEY!!! “Bundy is a grazing fees deadbeat!!!” “Hage is a grazing fees deadbeat!!!””
You really are not honest at all...
A cloying, amateurish, saccharin version, but the Delphi, nonetheless.
Puerile, cloudmountain.
that’s a thought but it would have to be between my cases because of time commitments. I am used to writing 100+ page reports that are basically intel briefs consisting of lots of bits and pieces of information that are catalogued, collated and analyzed to draw conclusions so it is right up my alley. My problem is it takes awhile to do these types of reports because I like to consider alternate explanations and play devils advocate to see if the information leads to a logical conclusion. I also like to make sure all sources are accurate and confirmed. In ther words, the complete opposite of a journalist...: )
In your [Mr Rogers] numerous discussions of the Wayne Hage case, you did The Progressive Thing - you left out stuff that you didn't want the other reader knowing.
Most people call it "lying by omission". It's one of the reasons I became a dedicated enemy of politicians in general, and Democrats in particular.
In post #200, Mr Rogers wrote:
I did not leave it out. I have mentioned it in numerous posts. For example: [Hage case posting]
Mr Rogers - you either have reading comprehension problems, or else the King's Shilling compels you to continue your baseless attacks, ala the Black Knight.
As we can clearly see from the exchange above, I wrote about your "numerous discussions of the Wayne Hage case".
I specifically said that you discussed the Wayne Hage case. DO YOU UNDERSTAND?
You then accuse me of saying that you "left it out".
What I did was explain that you left out specific parts in your postings about the Hage case - the parts that show the government actors for the criminals that they are.
I then explained that this is the Progressive tactic of "lying by omission" - when they don't want their fanboys to know certain facts that make them look bad.
I think our readers here know who is the desperate liar (YOU).
Wipe the foam off your chin, you're making a spectacle of yourself.
“What I did was explain that you left out specific parts in your postings about the Hage case - the parts that show the government actors for the criminals that they are.”
What part of this did you not understand:
““In the present case, the Government’s actions over the past two decades shocks the conscience of the Court...”
“THE COURT FURTHER FINDS that the denial of E. Wayne [*192] Hage’s renewal grazing application for the years 1993—2003 was an abuse of discretion, as well as a violation of due process”
“A more productive course of action might be for the state of Nevada to sue the BLM, arguing the BLM is violating public law by trying to eliminate grazing on public land in violation of federal law.”
” It is possible to sue the BLM successfully for arbitrary and capricious changes to an allotment - Hage did, and won.”
“Hage - a guy with more smarts than Bundy IMHO - lost his legal arguments in court last year (his estate, since he died), but the court also said the behavior of the BLM “shocks the conscience of the court”. It pointed out that the BLM went looking for a fight and created a problem where there did not need to be one.”
“The court DID, however, also attack the feds for creating a fight where none was needed - as I have pointed out.”
IOW, you consistently lie about what I have posted.
Hage’s legal theory that the feds cannot own land sucks. It sucks by definition, because a legal theory that loses every time it is tried sucks.
His argument that the BLM was “arbitrary and capricious” prevailed, in part, as I said it did.
Well, at least I'll make it fun and interesting:
Don't bleed on me, Rogers.
Good post. That fool is probably a BLM operative.
The King's Shilling is shiny, and has a siren's voice...
That is one of the dumbist questions on this thread...This is not about Jesus for #1 and no one on the face of the earth would know what Jesus would say...#2 I am sorry you were behind the door when Jesus gave out brains. I am guessing at that one because of your answers on this thread. Or maybe you love being a serf....
That is one of the dumbist questions on this thread...This is not about Jesus for #1 and no one on the face of the earth would know what Jesus would say...#2 I am sorry you were behind the door when Jesus gave out brains. I am guessing at that one because of your answers on this thread. Or maybe you love being a serf....
It is the smartest question because this is about right and wrong. Jesus would not hesitate to discuss what is right or wrong. "Render unto Caesar's what is Caesar's..."
Bundy has to render. If he doesn't want to he should lawyer up and get some real brains to fight his fight for him.
It's a shame he didn't lawyer up before this entire episode blew so far out of proportion. I hope he does so now.
If YOU think it's dumb, well then you have a problem with right and wrong...and Jesus. He is the arbiter of all that is right and wrong.
Starting in on the insults shows that you have nothing left in your repertory of intelligence but insult--reverting to the behavior of a seven-year old.
Your comments are puerile. Spare me your tantrums.
You might also check your spelling before you post. Putting out a misspelled word in this day and age shows that you weren't careful in your spelling. Careless. Just like your thinking.
Serf? Lol. You DO have the amusement factor to you. Drama queens are always amusing. Perhaps it's just the absurdity of it. Serf...lol, that's a good one.
This isn't tyranny. It's money. He won't be going to debtor's prison either. We all have lawyers and laws behind us and can pay them to fight the good fight for us.
Try not to over-dramatize the facts: non-payment of owed money to Uncle Sam. WHY he didn't lawyer up WAY before this is beyond me. Or did he think that this would just go away?
He saw this coming and did nothing. I wonder why.
I feel sorry for his family, relatives and friends. I wonder what THEIR advice is to him.
The offer of $1000.00 for him for a lawyer is still on, for my part.
============================
1. Scum? That is an ad hominum attack. That isn't supposed to be allowed on this site. Shame on you for sinking to the level of insults. Have you SO little in your character that you HAVE to insult people who disagree with you?
2. And you feel that I deserve NO respect because I disagree with you? Shame on you. People should be allowed to disagree with each other without getting insulted for it.
3. And now YOU demand that I leave this site. Have YOU suddenly become the arbiter of this site? Is your skin so thin that you simply cannot abide with people disagreeing with you?
You are really showing your true character here. Sad. I feel very sorry for you.
Well, then, store all this stuff and write your book when you retire. You have time. Gather your stuff and write a GOOD'UN.
Obama: Portrait of a Troubled Presidency
Obama's Legacy: Strife and Uncertainty
What Happened to Obama's Promise of HOPE and CHANGE?
Obama: Were the American Voters Wrong to Re-elect Him?
Once again, at the risk of you getting this post pulled also, which agency of the Federal Government do you work for?
I’m thinking more like “Obama: the Real Manchurian Candidate” or “Obama: The AntiChrist Exposed” ...: )
Both work for me. Brainwashed or AntiChrist.
You may be Kate, but I doubt that you are Conservative.
You and me both.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.