Quote from: tvbcof on April 26, 2014, 04:45:19 PM

Quote from: bryant.coleman on April 26, 2014, 11:55:52 AM

Quote from: counter on April 26, 2014, 09:04:37 AM

I'm not even going to entertain this whole issue with Bundy being a racists. It is a distraction from the real issues and will only bring up the same old discussion and emphasize division. It has nothing to do with what really matters is this case.

I agree. This new issue was raked up just to weaken the anti-BLM militia. And the smear campaign aimed at them may be used to justify any heavy handed action by the feds later.

At this point what we have are rational and reasonable people who put the typical amount of time into following things so mad at the resurgent 'militia movement' that they literally believe they should gas Bundy's place to put them all to sleep, then go in and round up the whole gang, dis-arm them, and never let them touch a gun again. If some of them got shot it would, I'm sure, be a regrettable but necessary cost of doing a necessary and correct thing on the part of the Feds. I know from first hand experience in talking to such a person in the flesh. This sentiment will die down in vigor but the seed will remain. Anyone who needs to be vilified and actions against him justified from now on can have a 'militia' or 'oathkeeper' or whatever tag put on him. This was somewhat effective before the Bundy event, and is that much more effective now.

My own information about the Randy Weaver case comes from a Jon Ronson book I just read called 'Them: Adventures with Extremists'. Prior to that, my understanding of the events of that incident mostly came from the mainstream media which I used as a significant source of news until a decade or so ago. It is pretty clear from Ronson's work that 'injustice' is a vast understatement of what the government(s) did to the Weaver clan, I mention this because I just happened by an info-grapic running down various 'extremist' events in Newsweek one of them being the Weaver thing. Exactly the same severe twisting of the Weaver affair that was used back then was used now. I pride myself on not getting pissed easily, but that came close.

This impact on great swaths of our society was, if I remember correctly, exactly what I predicted in my earlier posts. Predicting this was a no-brainer. Predicting that such an event would be useful was also a no-brainer. I again wonder if the whole thing was not a fairly carefully choreographer psyop. It just ended up being to convenient and to useful. And again, the Bundy clan no matter what there actual beliefs (which probably are 'extreme') owed $1M. That is a decent amount of leverage to get someone to actively play ball in a psyop.

Your spin is a psyop.

Plain and simple when people stand up for their sovereignty, they will be vilified as extremists. So what! We don't care. We are going to stand up any way.

First you played the polygamist card, then the racist card. Now you are playing the "better not stir up the extremist psyops" BS card.

There is no way to reason with people like you. You will bend and twist everything away from the fundamental point, which is you are not going to tell us not to stand up. We would rather die than be like you.

Quote from: tvbcof on April 26, 2014, 08:06:29 PM

Quote from: Bit_Happy on April 26, 2014, 07:55:15 PM

Quote from: tvbcof on April 26, 2014, 07:30:31 PM

Quote from: Bit_Happy on April 26, 2014, 04:48:26 PM

Similar to Waco: Much of what the media said about their leader was later shown to (probably) not be true.

I'm to chicken-shit to even look into the Waco thing because I'm afraid of what I might find....

"Blissful ignorance" is not a simple subject. ...

It's called resource allocation dude.

It's a winning strategy to get the enemy bogged down by weather, terrain, etc. I don't wish to be the dope in a rope-a-dope operation, and my friendly suggestion is that you guard against that eventuality as well.

You have many excuses for not fighting for liberty. And your excuses are what causes a slide into totalitarianism.

When MEN do what we were designed to do, this shit doesn't go this far.

Here is a video for you of where totalitarianism leads:

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=369784903160947

Quote from: tvbcof on April 27, 2014, 12:10:34 AM

I consider the BLM's mandate to be management of ALL of the resource under their charge in a systematic way. That is, if they use some of the fees and other resources at their disposal to protect certain segments of their holdings with an eye toward preserving some ecological artifacts, that seems perfectly appropriate to me.

There is no mandate. The BLM was not voted into office democratically. And they had no constitutional right to hold those Western lands once those territories became states.

Quote from: tvbcof on April 27, 2014, 12:10:34 AM

You can go ahead a vilify the BLM, but I know some people who work for the government personally. As I say, I live near land which they manage and deal with them from time to time. Believe it or not, they don't fly to Brussles and have secret meetings with the one-world Illuminati. They are typical people doing their jobs, and, paradoxically, more likely to be on the anti-government side of most arguments.

You constantly build these strawmen.

Of course the lower fucks don't go to Bilderberg meetings with George Soros. But I linked to a video upthread showing the Chief of Google, Eric Schmidt does.

Quote from: tvbcof on April 27, 2014, 12:10:34 AM

As I've said before, the percentage of land which the Feds own in most Western states is kind of high. This is not some evil plot to take over the world. What it is is an artifact of how our nation was built.

It is an artifact of ignoring the Constitution because no one like Bundy stood up before.

Quote from: tvbcof on April 27, 2014, 12:10:34 AM

Someone above said it isn't what the founding fathers had in mind. I agree, but mainly because most of them didn't think about the areas outside of the East at all.

You are an ignorant fuck who talks a lot of nonsense.

The Constitution specifically is against Federal power. The founding fathers were well aware what happens otherwise.

And they were aware that people like you are the biggest threat to liberty.

pungopete I wouldn't fight to defend this guy. I would opt-out and let him wallow in his own shit for a while. The Bible says we can take a slave for 7 years and try to let them learn how to not be slave. This was essentially Clive Bundy's point about slavery. If the fucks still haven't learned how to not be slaves (i.e. don't accept any welfare or state assistance), then they are slaves still.

I am all for helping people who can be and want to be helped. This means handing them some work to do, and letting the work and educate themselves out from under the position they are in. It doesn't mean handouts (except in dire short-term circumstances).

No rational person is advocating the violence against slaves we saw for example in the TV program Roots which horrified me as a child. I remember the slaveowner who cut off the foot of his slave so he couldn't run away. Even the Bible says when a thief steals, don't take revenge for maybe they really needed it. But the Bible doesn't say don't guard against thieves.