CID1990 wrote:actually i thought i was doing a pretty good impersonation of you and klamChizzang wrote:
Hmmmm... This post ^ has far too much: "pontificating ass on his high horse"
and not enough: "Just when you think you know everything turns out you don't"
I mean seriously, don't you feel like a douche lecturing now..?
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/1175 ... ce=twitter" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;It turns on the peculiar conservative metaphysics of taxation and subsidization. Bundy should be paying the feds, but he's not, and for now they're not stopping him. But let's imagine that Bundy started paying his fees and then the federal government turned around and sold the land to a wealthy black person who decided to jack up fees by 1000 percent, to the market rate. I guess at that point Williamson would relent and say Bundy must put up or shut up. As much as conservatives mythologize the struggling old western rancher, they value the distinction between public and private land even more, and would never argue that Cliven Bundy's within his rights to trespass upon another rancher's property and feed his cattle without paying the required fee.
But another way of phrasing that would be to say he'd previously been enjoying a federal subsidy, and the elimination of that subsidy doesn't entitle him to steal from other private citizens.
I happen to agree. But by the same logic, the government's imposition of relatively low fees or other cost-sharing requirements doesn't entitle Bundy and other ranchers to just ignore the new law, no matter how frustrating they find it. The "fee" or "tax" or whatever you want to call it is actually just a reduction to an existing subsidy.
If Bundy were a food stamp recipient, and Republicans in Congress cut his SNAP benefit, and he responded by walking into a public high school every afternoon and stealing a subsidized lunch, Williamson wouldn't compare him to a freedom fighter. He'd call him a lazy deadbeat.
Put a hat and boots on a freeloader and suddenly he's a rugged individl...kalm wrote:Nailed it.
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/1175 ... ce=twitter" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;It turns on the peculiar conservative metaphysics of taxation and subsidization. Bundy should be paying the feds, but he's not, and for now they're not stopping him. But let's imagine that Bundy started paying his fees and then the federal government turned around and sold the land to a wealthy black person who decided to jack up fees by 1000 percent, to the market rate. I guess at that point Williamson would relent and say Bundy must put up or shut up. As much as conservatives mythologize the struggling old western rancher, they value the distinction between public and private land even more, and would never argue that Cliven Bundy's within his rights to trespass upon another rancher's property and feed his cattle without paying the required fee.
But another way of phrasing that would be to say he'd previously been enjoying a federal subsidy, and the elimination of that subsidy doesn't entitle him to steal from other private citizens.
I happen to agree. But by the same logic, the government's imposition of relatively low fees or other cost-sharing requirements doesn't entitle Bundy and other ranchers to just ignore the new law, no matter how frustrating they find it. The "fee" or "tax" or whatever you want to call it is actually just a reduction to an existing subsidy.
If Bundy were a food stamp recipient, and Republicans in Congress cut his SNAP benefit, and he responded by walking into a public high school every afternoon and stealing a subsidized lunch, Williamson wouldn't compare him to a freedom fighter. He'd call him a lazy deadbeat.
kalm wrote:Nailed it.
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/1175 ... ce=twitter" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;It turns on the peculiar conservative metaphysics of taxation and subsidization. Bundy should be paying the feds, but he's not, and for now they're not stopping him. But let's imagine that Bundy started paying his fees and then the federal government turned around and sold the land to a wealthy black person who decided to jack up fees by 1000 percent, to the market rate. I guess at that point Williamson would relent and say Bundy must put up or shut up. As much as conservatives mythologize the struggling old western rancher, they value the distinction between public and private land even more, and would never argue that Cliven Bundy's within his rights to trespass upon another rancher's property and feed his cattle without paying the required fee.
But another way of phrasing that would be to say he'd previously been enjoying a federal subsidy, and the elimination of that subsidy doesn't entitle him to steal from other private citizens.
I happen to agree. But by the same logic, the government's imposition of relatively low fees or other cost-sharing requirements doesn't entitle Bundy and other ranchers to just ignore the new law, no matter how frustrating they find it. The "fee" or "tax" or whatever you want to call it is actually just a reduction to an existing subsidy.
If Bundy were a food stamp recipient, and Republicans in Congress cut his SNAP benefit, and he responded by walking into a public high school every afternoon and stealing a subsidized lunch, Williamson wouldn't compare him to a freedom fighter. He'd call him a lazy deadbeat.
What do you find disagreeable oh bald one?Baldy wrote:kalm wrote:Nailed it.
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/1175 ... ce=twitter" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Not sure if people are actually this stupid, or just refuse to "get it"
kalm wrote:Oh, oh...even Hannity is jumping ship now.
http://mobile.rawstory.com/all/2014-04- ... en-bundy#1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Did you guys see the clip of the militaman saying they'd put women and children in front of them if attacked? Ha. What a brave group.Didn't Nevada hand it over (or something like that) in the 1950's.CitadelGrad wrote:So? Nevada would not have been admitted to the United States if it had not included language in its constitution that pledged Nevada to the union in perpetuity.Ibanez wrote:
Jesus fucking Christ. What are you talking about? The Civil War ended in April 1865. The Nevada Constitution was in place by October 1864. However, that is besides the point. The law is on the books. If you don't like the law, change it.
Again, why has the federal government not met its obligation to sell the bulk of its land in Nevada and other western states?
You mean like the muslim terrorists do? Those muslim terrorists whose virtues D1B is always singing?Ibanez wrote:kalm wrote:Oh, oh...even Hannity is jumping ship now.
http://mobile.rawstory.com/all/2014-04- ... en-bundy#1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Are you implying that Sen. Reid is right?AZGrizFan wrote:You mean like the muslim terrorists do? Those muslim terrorists whose virtues D1B is always singing?Ibanez wrote:
Ibanez wrote:Are you implying that Sen. Reid is right?AZGrizFan wrote:
You mean like the muslim terrorists do? Those muslim terrorists whose virtues D1B is always singing?
Bundy should've paid the fees, and the Gov't shouldn't have let this drag on for 20 years. Bundy is a nut and CNN, MSNBC, Fox News aren't to blame.
- Spoiler: show
When it suits them they call it equality............Ibanez wrote:kalm wrote:Oh, oh...even Hannity is jumping ship now.
http://mobile.rawstory.com/all/2014-04- ... en-bundy#1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
No. No I am not.
Yeah. Here's an idea. If you're going to go to Bumfuckerville, Nevada and standoff with the Feds, nut up and stand in front. Don't put defenseless women and children in front for your own propaganda. Oh, and don't advertise your plan. Amateurs.ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:When it suits them they call it equality............Ibanez wrote:
Defenseless women and children.Ibanez wrote:Yeah. Here's an idea. If you're going to go to Bumfuckerville, Nevada and standoff with the Feds, nut up and stand in front. Don't put defenseless women and children in front for your own propaganda. Oh, and don't advertise your plan. Amateurs.ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:
When it suits them they call it equality............
So you think it's cool to act like a macho man and then when the fight comes, hide behind someone else? Got it.AZGrizFan wrote:Defenseless women and children.Ibanez wrote:
Yeah. Here's an idea. If you're going to go to Bumfuckerville, Nevada and standoff with the Feds, nut up and stand in front. Don't put defenseless women and children in front for your own propaganda. Oh, and don't advertise your plan. Amateurs.
What is this, the 1950's?
So when women want to be on the front lines fighting and we say no it's sexist, but when we give them what they want it's being a coward?Ibanez wrote:So you think it's cool to act like a macho man and then when the fight comes, hide behind someone else? Got it.AZGrizFan wrote:
Defenseless women and children.
What is this, the 1950's?
No, that isn't what I said. Try to follow along. Oath Keeper Mack said,ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:So when women want to be on the front lines fighting and we say no it's sexist, but when we give them what they want it's being a coward?Ibanez wrote:
So you think it's cool to act like a macho man and then when the fight comes, hide behind someone else? Got it.
Got it......kind of
“We were actually strategizing to put all the women up at the front,” Mack said in a Fox News clip pulled by The Blaze. “If they are going to start shooting, it’s going to be women that are going to be televised all across the world getting shot by these rogue federal officers.”
Baldy wrote:kalm wrote:Nailed it.
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/1175 ... ce=twitter" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Not sure if people are actually this stupid, or just refuse to "get it"
Seems like a pretty good strategy to me.Ibanez wrote:No, that isn't what I said. Try to follow along. Oath Keeper Mack said,ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:
So when women want to be on the front lines fighting and we say no it's sexist, but when we give them what they want it's being a coward?
Got it......kind of
“We were actually strategizing to put all the women up at the front,” Mack said in a Fox News clip pulled by The Blaze. “If they are going to start shooting, it’s going to be women that are going to be televised all across the world getting shot by these rogue federal officers.”
Now, if these are armed, militia women then by all means, use them (it's still a pathetic and coward attempt to marty these women for a racist law breaker.) It didn't sound like that, but then again, i'm at work earning a living and not standing in the desert defending some rancher that doesn't want to pay grazing fees. It could be, but it doesn't sound like that. But if you want to fight the gov't, then don't stand behind a wall of women that you're using to propagandize the event. They advocated using women as human shield to garner sympathy for their cause. That's nothing like women fighting on the front lines in our armed forces. If you don't see the difference, well, that is your problem not mind.
I guess agree to disagree. If I were to have a gun fight with the Gov't, I wouldn't hide behind a woman. I'd be a man and face it head on (or probably from a defensive position).ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:Seems like a pretty good strategy to me.Ibanez wrote:
No, that isn't what I said. Try to follow along. Oath Keeper Mack said,
Now, if these are armed, militia women then by all means, use them (it's still a pathetic and coward attempt to marty these women for a racist law breaker.) It didn't sound like that, but then again, i'm at work earning a living and not standing in the desert defending some rancher that doesn't want to pay grazing fees. It could be, but it doesn't sound like that. But if you want to fight the gov't, then don't stand behind a wall of women that you're using to propagandize the event. They advocated using women as human shield to garner sympathy for their cause. That's nothing like women fighting on the front lines in our armed forces. If you don't see the difference, well, that is your problem not mind.
Keeps the government from firing the first shot, not because they care but because it would be bad PR and the media couldn't spin it for them as easy. You know they are going to start this like they always do and blame some patsy...right? If you don't get that then it's your problem not mind
And you think it's the 1950's where a woman's place is in the home, chained to the sink, acting as a baby-making machine. Got it.Ibanez wrote:So you think it's cool to act like a macho man and then when the fight comes, hide behind someone else? Got it.AZGrizFan wrote:
Defenseless women and children.
What is this, the 1950's?
No. I didn't say that. But you obviously believe it's ok to pick a fight and then let other die for you. Fucking pussy. bunds and those militia hacks deserve to be slaughtered.AZGrizFan wrote:And you think it's the 1950's where a woman's place is in the home, chained to the sink, acting as a baby-making machine. Got it.Ibanez wrote:
So you think it's cool to act like a macho man and then when the fight comes, hide behind someone else? Got it.
Ps. Duck bundyIbanez wrote:No. I didn't say that. But you obviously believe it's ok to pick a fight and then let other die for you. Fucking pussy. bunds and those militia hacks deserve to be slaughtered.AZGrizFan wrote:
And you think it's the 1950's where a woman's place is in the home, chained to the sink, acting as a baby-making machine. Got it.
I know. But see how easy that is? Dummy.Ibanez wrote:No. I didn't say that. But you obviously believe it's ok to pick a fight and then let other die for you. Fucking pussy. bunds and those militia hacks deserve to be slaughtered.AZGrizFan wrote:
And you think it's the 1950's where a woman's place is in the home, chained to the sink, acting as a baby-making machine. Got it.
