Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Pensacola Discussion Forum » Politics » Nevada rancher situation shows what the proper use of a militia is all about

Nevada rancher situation shows what the proper use of a militia is all about

+3
2seaoat
Floridatexan
Wordslinger
7 posters

Go to page : 1, 2  Next

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 2]

Guest


Guest

Yep liberals. Lots more of where that came from too. Just imagine the support this guy could have got had he not been in BFE? I'm sure it made the sphincter pucker factor of the BLM and DHS at x100

Guest


Guest

Nevada rancher situation shows what the proper use of a militia is all about 1794636_627671310655944_7128490399165828552_n

Wordslinger

Wordslinger

The truth is the BLM handled the affair wrong from the beginning, and backed off not a moment too soon.

Had anyone started shooting -- and there were many who were ready to do so, the cowboys and militia would have been torn to bits.

I have little doubt there were military assets in place to quickly terminate any conflict that began.

The BLM was far too heavy-handed, and someone was smart enough to realize how bad it would look if a few hundred militia types were chewed to pieces.

Now the issue will be handled by the courts, and decided by the courts, as it should have been.

It appears the Feds may have learned an important lesson -- or maybe it just means that next time they'll bring on a few tanks right at the beginning.

One thing for sure, hundreds of other ranchers in the west are paying the U.S. grazing fees. Somebody's in the right here, and I doubt it's the cowboys.

Floridatexan

Floridatexan

Nevada rancher situation shows what the proper use of a militia is all about The_tea_party_chappatte

Floridatexan

Floridatexan

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/04/the-irony-of-cliven-bundys-unconstitutional-stand/360587/

(Excerpt:)

"...His personal grievance with federal authority doesn't stop with the BLM, though. "I believe this is a sovereign state of Nevada," Bundy said in a radio interview last Thursday. "I abide by all of Nevada state laws. But I don’t recognize the United States government as even existing." Ironically, this position directly contradicts Article 1, Section 2 of the Nevada Constitution:

All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for the protection, security and benefit of the people; and they have the right to alter or reform the same whenever the public good may require it. But the Paramount Allegiance of every citizen is due to the Federal Government in the exercise of all its Constitutional powers as the same have been or may be defined by the Supreme Court of the United States; and no power exists in the people of this or any other State of the Federal Union to dissolve their connection therewith or perform any act tending to impair, subvert, or resist the Supreme Authority of the government of the United States. The Constitution of the United States confers full power on the Federal Government to maintain and Perpetuate its existence, and whensoever any portion of the States, or people thereof attempt to secede from the Federal Union, or forcibly resist the Execution of its laws, the Federal Government may, by warrant of the Constitution, employ armed force in compelling obedience to its Authority.

The paramount-allegiance clause, a product of the era in which Nevada gained statehood, originated in Nevada's first (and unofficial) constitutional convention of 1863. Some 3,000 miles to the east, the Civil War raged between the federal government in the North and West and the rebellion that had swallowed the South. In early 1864, Abraham Lincoln—who wanted more pro-Union states in Congress so as to pass the amendment to abolish slavery, and a few more electoral votes to guarantee his reelection that fall—signed a bill authorizing Nevada to convene an official constitutional convention for statehood. The state constitution's framers, who were overwhelmingly Unionist, retained the clause in solidarity with the Union when they gathered in July 1864..."

2seaoat



No conservative supports non payment of fees and taxes by freeloaders. This is Hannity and Fox trying to turn a scofflaw into a righteous person. The majority of these fees are used to enhance productivity off these grazing lands by developing grants for better water resource access. Now, the majority of Americans do not support scofflaws. They understand that this guy will pay......and bad news for all the people who thought they could change into some political battle.....sorry it will go back into court and quietly the rancher's life will find out that he is going to get whacked financially with attachments, levies, and non wage garnishments.....while everybody is getting a gun and being stupid.....the rancher will end up in jail on contempt of court, penniless, and eventually paying every dime of what is owed after the propagandist try to do their best as paid shills.

The funny thing about this is that the folks in Nebraska which are facing a foreign corporation(trans Canada) using imminent domain to take a portion of their ranches for a pipeline.....not one conservative is coming to these legitimate landowners who are paying three times the amount of the scofflaw for their own grazing costs on their land, yet a foreign corporation with big government is going to take their land.......crickets from so called conservatives who rally around this scofflaw, yet if instead of an oil pipeline, this was a foreign corporation putting in a wind farm against the landowners, the paid shills would be there in a NY second. You see this contradiction cannot be reconciled, and it does not have to be because these folks are not conservatives, they are nutball libertarians who are being used by special interests to attack representative government in America.

Tell me how you reconcile these concepts Pace? At what point will you realize you are simply a tool for a very specific game plan?

polecat

polecat

PACEDOG#1 wrote:Yep liberals. Lots more of where that came from too. Just imagine the support this guy could have got had he not been in BFE? I'm sure it made the sphincter pucker factor of the BLM and DHS at x100

BFE? so to far to drive for true ''Patriots'' LOL
Dont count your chickens just yet. It's about to get hot out there and these ''Patriots'' will get bored and go home.
sean hannitys boner will head south after 4 hours anyway unless he can get someone killed soon.
When did the teabaggers start supporting moochers & takers?

polecat

polecat

to funny

https://soundcloud.com/#rockymountainmike/grazing-cattle

Wordslinger

Wordslinger

PACEDOG#1 wrote:Yep liberals. Lots more of where that came from too. Just imagine the support this guy could have got had he not been in BFE? I'm sure it made the sphincter pucker factor of the BLM and DHS at x100

Yes, no doubt the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps are all shaking in their boots at the thought of facing cowboy militia in the desert.

othershoe1030

othershoe1030

So he doesn't recognize the US government? I wonder if he's paid his federal income taxes? If he has, he recognizes the authority. If he hasn't he's in trouble enough with the IRS never mind the BLM!

othershoe1030

othershoe1030

Floridatexan wrote:Nevada rancher situation shows what the proper use of a militia is all about The_tea_party_chappatte

 cheers cheers cheers

QueenOfHearts

QueenOfHearts

Wordslinger wrote:
PACEDOG#1 wrote:Yep liberals. Lots more of where that came from too. Just imagine the support this guy could have got had he not been in BFE? I'm sure it made the sphincter pucker factor of the BLM and DHS at x100

Yes, no doubt the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps are all shaking in their boots at the thought of facing cowboy militia in the desert.



Would the military be involved in responding? I would think it would be for law enforcement to handle.

Guest


Guest

I do admire your militia's mr pacedog 1 they seem more ruthless than my muslim brotherhood. Do your militia's always put women first? Maybe you can also strap on a few bombs and come over here to help us out.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/15/richard-mack-_n_5154606.html

polecat

polecat

Cliven Bundy has this to say:

"And we are after freedom. We're after liberty. That's what we want..."

He's not after freedom. What he's after just like every other "Conservative" in the country, is to not pay for the government services he uses. Every other rancher in the West pays his damn $1.50 per head per year to graze his cattle on land that belongs to all of us, but not Cliven Bundy, because FREEDOM!!!! and LIBERTY!!!!

othershoe1030

othershoe1030

polecat wrote:Cliven Bundy has this to say:

"And we are after freedom. We're after liberty. That's what we want..."

He's not after freedom.  What he's after just like every other "Conservative" in the country, is to not pay for the government services he uses.  Every other rancher in the West pays his damn $1.50 per head per year to graze his cattle on land that belongs to all of us, but not Cliven Bundy, because FREEDOM!!!! and LIBERTY!!!!

You are exactly right. He and his supporters are dressing up this slacker as someone wrapped in the flag devoted to FREEDOM. Even at $1.35 per unit per month it is a steal of a deal. I wonder why he thinks he's special?

othershoe1030

othershoe1030

SOOOOO, if the US government is not recognized by these guys what exactly are they doing with this sign??!



Nevada rancher situation shows what the proper use of a militia is all about Article-2602153-1D03D14500000578-316_634x422

Guest


Guest

Anyone can make a sign

Guest


Guest

That sign was to designate an area well away from the point of contention to sequester the right of peaceful assembly and speech. It's not always politically expedient to outright squash dissent... relegating it to obscurity works too.

othershoe1030

othershoe1030

PkrBum wrote:That sign was to designate an area well away from the point of contention to sequester the right of peaceful assembly and speech. It's not always politically expedient to outright squash dissent... relegating it to obscurity works too.

But by what form of logic can they call on the first amendment to protect free speech when they disavow the government that produced that protection?

othershoe1030

othershoe1030

PACEDOG#1 wrote:Anyone can make a sign

Painfully obvious!

Sal

Sal

Also, notice the American flags.

What a bunch of nimrods.

Guest


Guest

othershoe1030 wrote:
PkrBum wrote:That sign was to designate an area well away from the point of contention to sequester the right of peaceful assembly and speech. It's not always politically expedient to outright squash dissent... relegating it to obscurity works too.

But by what form of logic can they call on the first amendment to protect free speech when they disavow the government that produced that protection?

Produced the protection? Are you saying the bill of rights come from govt? That govt allows them to exist?

Shit... how do y'all become convinced by something you have to know somewhere deep down is patently false?

Doesn't a little pang go off after it gets regurgitated? No gag reflex... no nothing anymore?

Guest


Guest

othershoe1030 wrote:
PkrBum wrote:That sign was to designate an area well away from the point of contention to sequester the right of peaceful assembly and speech. It's not always politically expedient to outright squash dissent... relegating it to obscurity works too.

But by what form of logic can they call on the first amendment to protect free speech when they disavow the government that produced that protection?

The gov is supposed to protect the constitution. However it no longer does. especially the current TYRANT in office.

At the end of the day, it is individuals that protect their freedoms.

othershoe1030

othershoe1030

Sal wrote:Also, notice the American flags.

What a bunch of nimrods.

Another visual irony. Thanks, I missed that one!

othershoe1030

othershoe1030

PkrBum wrote:
othershoe1030 wrote:
PkrBum wrote:That sign was to designate an area well away from the point of contention to sequester the right of peaceful assembly and speech. It's not always politically expedient to outright squash dissent... relegating it to obscurity works too.

But by what form of logic can they call on the first amendment to protect free speech when they disavow the government that produced that protection?

Produced the protection? Are you saying the bill of rights come from govt? That govt allows them to exist?

Shit... how do y'all become convinced by something you have to know somewhere deep down is patently false?

Doesn't a little pang go off after it gets regurgitated? No gag reflex... no nothing anymore?


Would you care to elaborate?

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 2]

Go to page : 1, 2  Next

Pensacola Discussion Forum » Politics » Nevada rancher situation shows what the proper use of a militia is all about

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum