Armed Feds Prepare For Showdown With Nevada Cattle Rancher

[pungopete468]

There comes a point where the "public opinion" spread by the MSM reaches a level so disproportionate with the true public opinion that people start to speak out in opposition. The recent gun control attempt showed that to be true... I've never seen so many random people assert their views in public as I witnessed last summer.

The network of these militias is a powerful network of friends, families, and communities. They are willing to die for each other and for you. The unheard voice of the public is swollen with emotion and just because it isn't heard doesn't discount the strength or will of it...

If the plan is to turn the people against those patriots, then it's not going to work. People who disagree with the presence of a militia at the Bundy ranch are much less likely to take any action or network their desire to disband them. However, on the other hand; those in support of the presence of the militia at the Bundy ranch are exponentially more likely to spread their views and opinions. The supporters care about the cause much more deeply than exists a desire in the general public to disband them. It's a losing proposition for those who would vilify the militia and the Bundy family.

Also, I'm not arguing about taxes here but there is a point that needs to be considered... He does not owe taxes, he owes "fees" and people would be wise to understand the difference. A fee is not a tax...

These fees were assessed to serve a purpose. The BLM was to use the proceeds of these fees to assist the ranchers with the maintenance of the land. When the BLM stopped using the fees for the purpose of which they were assessed, the fees were no longer necessary.  Bundy has elected not to voluntarily pay these fees since they are no longer legitimate. That would be like paying for an "uninsured motorist fee" without using the funding to pay for damages caused by hit and run or uninsured motorists...

fee
fē/Submit
noun
1. a payment made to a professional person or to a professional or public body in exchange for advice or services.

The BLM fees were similar to homeowners association fees in that they are paid as an exchange of money for services that benefit those who pay the fees. (maintenance of the land in this case.)

Further on a tangent; when the government assesses a tax, does that mean the amount is always owed? Do you trust in the infallibility of the government to assess taxes properly and fairly? When the courts refuse to hear cases of tax protest and treat protest in a manner consistent with "heresy" are you sure you can prevent that system from abuse?

[1715161330]

1715161330

[1715161330]

1715161330

[1715161330]

1715161330

[1715161330]

1715161330

[1715161330]

1715161330

[counter]

It doesn't really matter is this was a psyop in my opinion all that matters the overreach of the feds to take what isn't theirs to begin with.  They don't want people talking about the scandals in instead fighting about things that don't matter in the big scheme of things.  Bundy and his beliefs aren't the issue.  What matters is how these things will effect the rights of the average citizen from here on out.

[tvbcof]

There comes a point where the "public opinion" spread by the MSM reaches a level so disproportionate with the true public opinion that people start to speak out in opposition. The recent gun control attempt showed that to be true... I've never seen so many random people assert their views in public as I witnessed last summer.

The network of these militias is a powerful network of friends, families, and communities. They are willing to die for each other and for you. The unheard voice of the public is swollen with emotion and just because it isn't heard doesn't discount the strength or will of it...

If the plan is to turn the people against those patriots, then it's not going to work. People who disagree with the presence of a militia at the Bundy ranch are much less likely to take any action or network their desire to disband them. However, on the other hand; those in support of the presence of the militia at the Bundy ranch are exponentially more likely to spread their views and opinions. The supporters care about the cause much more deeply than exists a desire in the general public to disband them. It's a losing proposition for those who would vilify the militia and the Bundy family.

You are sort of right, but mostly wrong (IMHO).

Most random people in my area have a sense of distrust of the means and motives of the central government in some areas.  It is probably strong enough for the Feds to consider it a potential problem which needs to be worked on.  As I've said, the Occupy stuff was very likely a wakeup call, and it marks a noteworthy point when domestic surveillance efforts were really ramped up.  I'd also note that when a complete surveillance system is in place, poking the hornets nest and getting people communicating about things serves a useful purpose if one is formulating individualized high precision dossiers (which, beyond question, the NSA and other agencies are doing.)  It also provides the opportunity to field test 'fusion centers' and other mechanisms which could be called upon to deal with certain 'problems.'

You are almost certainly wrong about the level of action and support that most people will have for which groups.  A vast majority of thinking people are not going to see a bunch of anarchists with guns imposing their will by force as preferable to much but the most grotesque of 'government overreach.'  This because it isn't.  The direction that most people will go will be to welcome the otherwise unwelcome government forces to protect them against psychos who would use their own wives and children as human shields.

Also, I'm not arguing about taxes here but there is a point that needs to be considered... He does not owe taxes, he owes "fees" and people would be wise to understand the difference. A fee is not a tax...

These fees were assessed to serve a purpose. The BLM was to use the proceeds of these fees to assist the ranchers with the maintenance of the land. When the BLM stopped using the fees for the purpose of which they were assessed, the fees were no longer necessary.  Bundy has elected not to voluntarily pay these fees since they are no longer legitimate. That would be like paying for an "uninsured motorist fee" without using the funding to pay for damages caused by hit and run or uninsured motorists...

fee
fē/Submit
noun
1. a payment made to a professional person or to a professional or public body in exchange for advice or services.

The BLM fees were similar to homeowners association fees in that they are paid as an exchange of money for services that benefit those who pay the fees. (maintenance of the land in this case.)

Further on a tangent; when the government assesses a tax, does that mean the amount is always owed? Do you trust in the infallibility of the government to assess taxes properly and fairly? When the courts refuse to hear cases of tax protest and treat protest in a manner consistent with "heresy" are you sure you can prevent that system from abuse?

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.

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.

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.  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.  Those few who did have some vision (like Jefferson) were active in planning and dreaming much later in their careers and long after the founding documents were assembled.

It is possible to get the Feds off our backs without resorting to an armed conflict, and the dopers are proving this right now.  There is a lot of money to be made on the 'war on drugs' and fierce resistance from the Feds against letting that war go.  But the states are winning this battle.  It would be similarly possible to win control of a reasonable balance of Federal land in the Western states.  It would take something more than sitting around polishing one's guns and stewing about things though.

[pungopete468]

There comes a point where the "public opinion" spread by the MSM reaches a level so disproportionate with the true public opinion that people start to speak out in opposition. The recent gun control attempt showed that to be true... I've never seen so many random people assert their views in public as I witnessed last summer.

The network of these militias is a powerful network of friends, families, and communities. They are willing to die for each other and for you. The unheard voice of the public is swollen with emotion and just because it isn't heard doesn't discount the strength or will of it...

If the plan is to turn the people against those patriots, then it's not going to work. People who disagree with the presence of a militia at the Bundy ranch are much less likely to take any action or network their desire to disband them. However, on the other hand; those in support of the presence of the militia at the Bundy ranch are exponentially more likely to spread their views and opinions. The supporters care about the cause much more deeply than exists a desire in the general public to disband them. It's a losing proposition for those who would vilify the militia and the Bundy family.

You are sort of right, but mostly wrong (IMHO).

Most random people in my area have a sense of distrust of the means and motives of the central government in some areas.  It is probably strong enough for the Feds to consider it a potential problem which needs to be worked on.  As I've said, the Occupy stuff was very likely a wakeup call, and it marks a noteworthy point when domestic surveillance efforts were really ramped up.  I'd also note that when a complete surveillance system is in place, poking the hornets nest and getting people communicating about things serves a useful purpose if one is formulating individualized high precision dossiers (which, beyond question, the NSA and other agencies are doing.)  It also provides the opportunity to field test 'fusion centers' and other mechanisms which could be called upon to deal with certain 'problems.'

You are almost certainly wrong about the level of action and support that most people will have for which groups.  A vast majority of thinking people are not going to see a bunch of anarchists with guns imposing their will by force as preferable to much but the most grotesque of 'government overreach.'  This because it isn't.  The direction that most people will go will be to welcome the otherwise unwelcome government forces to protect them against psychos who would use their own wives and children as human shields.

I think it's too soon to consider any point of view "wrong" IMHO; time will prove somebody wrong but nobody is wrong just yet. I place a lot of faith in society because I believe that the majority of people are good people. I think that the voices of society are largely suppressed. I didn't always have this opinion; before last summer I felt that the majority of people were a lost cause. I was pleasantly surprised last year by the number of people who would share their opinions on their level of dissatisfaction with the state of affairs. I was surprised how many people felt the same way I did. My co-workers and I would talk about current events and customers would simply join into our conversations. It was completely different from what I would expect. I decided then that the voice of society is simply ignored but the message is still alive and strong between people. I disagree with your view because the intelligent people in society will more likely understand the situation from a self-generated perspective rather than the one fed by the MSM. I think the network effect of a strong cause based on truth is greater than the network effect of an opinion based on a mood-swing. Those people will forget about it once they flip the channel and start watching "reality-tv".

Also, I'm not arguing about taxes here but there is a point that needs to be considered... He does not owe taxes, he owes "fees" and people would be wise to understand the difference. A fee is not a tax...

These fees were assessed to serve a purpose. The BLM was to use the proceeds of these fees to assist the ranchers with the maintenance of the land. When the BLM stopped using the fees for the purpose of which they were assessed, the fees were no longer necessary.  Bundy has elected not to voluntarily pay these fees since they are no longer legitimate. That would be like paying for an "uninsured motorist fee" without using the funding to pay for damages caused by hit and run or uninsured motorists...


fee
fē/Submit
noun
1. a payment made to a professional person or to a professional or public body in exchange for advice or services.

The BLM fees were similar to homeowners association fees in that they are paid as an exchange of money for services that benefit those who pay the fees. (maintenance of the land in this case.)

Further on a tangent; when the government assesses a tax, does that mean the amount is always owed? Do you trust in the infallibility of the government to assess taxes properly and fairly? When the courts refuse to hear cases of tax protest and treat protest in a manner consistent with "heresy" are you sure you can prevent that system from abuse?

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.

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.

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.  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.  Those few who did have some vision (like Jefferson) were active in planning and dreaming much later in their careers and long after the founding documents were assembled.

It is possible to get the Feds off our backs without resorting to an armed conflict, and the dopers are proving this right now.  There is a lot of money to be made on the 'war on drugs' and fierce resistance from the Feds against letting that war go.  But the states are winning this battle.  It would be similarly possible to win control of a reasonable balance of Federal land in the Western states.  It would take something more than sitting around polishing one's guns and stewing about things though.

That may seem appropriate to you but it's not appropriate. Think about it; it may seem appropriate to use the funds collected under Social Security for National Disaster Relief in a national emergency, that doesn't make it appropriate. It is absolutely inappropriate for a governmental agency to use proceeds in a manner inconsistent with the purpose of the fee. Just because you might agree that the use of those funds is supporting a good cause doesn't make it appropriate...

Trust me, I don't vilify people working for the government. I live in Hampton Roads and most of the people I know work for the government; family included. I'm not talking about that government. I'm talking about the 4th branch of government which has been abusing the loop-holes in our Constitution to make laws and enforce them without oversight or accountability. I think we need to go back to basics...

Also, they might not fly out to secret Illuminati meetings but you can't believe that the desire for power and control will ever stop at, "Well I guess this is good enough". The common goal has been World domination for much of recorded history and I think it would be foolish to think that we've "grown out of it". The desire to rule the world is alive and well...  

I was the one who mentioned above that what we have isn't what our founding fathers envisioned. I believe we're an empty shell of that dream...

It is possible to get the Feds off our backs without armed conflict. However, it's not going to happen when the people are unwilling to take it as far as necessary. Without taking up arms, the fed will steamroll any attempt at peaceful resistance... Taking up arms isn't the same as firing them; it's a basic principle really. When an advancing force encounters a resisting force, the two forces must be balanced or there will be a confrontation. The threat of armed confrontation is decreased dramatically when both forces aren't willing to face the consequences of starting one...

The government is important, however these government agencies who act outside of the Constitution need a reality check. The system we have was designed to protect the people from an unfair/unjust government; not the other way around. These agencies are acting outside of the fundamental framework of our legal system. They're like thousands of branches extending beyond the powers enumerated to the executive branch within the Constitution. Each of these little organizations has the power to legislate, enforce, and uphold their own little bubble of laws. It's like thousands of little dictatorships working together.

--P.S.
The Federal Government shouldn't have the power to pass laws over individual citizens. The Fed should have only the power to regulate interstate commerce, international treaties, and arbitrate interstate disputes. The State and Local government should be responsible for the laws of the people. This is what was envisioned, this is what we need. Ask yourself this; why would each State have it's own Constitution of laws when the Federal Government can impose laws on individuals? The framework of our legal system depended on the separation of State and Federal power. The Federal Government was never intended to possess the power to subject all citizens of the United States to any Federal Law... That's another reason why these Federal Agencies are unlawful; it's against State's Rights to impose Federal Laws dealing with individual citizens. The Federal Government has the power to make laws regarding the interactions between States...

[Bit_Happy]

....These agencies are acting outside of the fundamental framework of our legal system. They're like thousands of branches extending beyond the powers enumerated to the executive branch within the Constitution. Each of these little organizations has the power to legislate, enforce, and uphold their own little bubble of laws. It's like thousands of little dictatorships working together.

Have you ever seen a comprehensive list of virtually every State and Federal Gov agency/dept in the USA?
Even if you are aware of "the monster" it was still a shockingly HUGE list.
I don't have the link right now.

[pungopete468]

I've seen the list and it's unbelievable...

It's unfathomable that enough wealth even exists to pay for these agencies...

I think the people would be better off with State and Local solutions to State and Local problems...

[bryant.coleman]

I think the people would be better off with State and Local solutions to State and Local problems...

Exactly. However, Harry Reid and the BLM think otherwise. Before this situation gets any worse, the Nevada state authorities should take control of the situation from the federal authorities.

[Bit_Happy]

I think the people would be better off with State and Local solutions to State and Local problems...

Exactly. However, Harry Reid and the BLM think otherwise. Before this situation gets any worse, the Nevada state authorities should take control of the situation from the federal authorities.

It's slightly similar to the Gox liquidation situation:
We know something bad is probably coming, but the details are not certain, and we cannot do anything to speed things along.

[Bit_Happy]

The Bundy Paradigm: Will You Be a Rebel, Revolutionary or a Slave?

By John W. Whitehead
April 21, 2014

    “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.”—John F. Kennedy

Those tempted to write off the standoff at the Bundy Ranch as little more than a show of force by militia-minded citizens would do well to reconsider their easy dismissal of this brewing rebellion. This goes far beyond concerns about grazing rights or the tension between the state and the federal government.

Few conflicts are ever black and white, and the Bundy situation, with its abundance of gray areas, is no exception. Yet the question is not whether Cliven Bundy and his supporters are domestic terrorists, as Harry Reid claims, or patriots, or something in between. Nor is it a question of whether the Nevada rancher is illegally grazing his cattle on federal land or whether that land should rightfully belong to the government. Nor is it even a question of who’s winning the showdown— the government with its arsenal of SWAT teams, firepower and assault vehicles, or Bundy’s militia supporters with their assortment of weapons—because if such altercations end in bloodshed, everyone loses.

What we’re really faced with, and what we’ll see more of before long, is a growing dissatisfaction with the government and its heavy-handed tactics by people who are tired of being used and abused and are ready to say “enough is enough.” And it won’t matter what the issue is—whether it’s a rancher standing his ground over grazing rights, a minister jailed for holding a Bible study in his own home, or a community outraged over police shootings of unarmed citizens—these are the building blocks of a political powder keg. Now all that remains is a spark, and it need not be a very big one, to set the whole powder keg aflame.

As I show in my book A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, there’s a subtext to this incident that must not be ignored, and it is simply this: America is a pressure cooker with no steam valve, and things are about to blow. This is what happens when a parasitical government muzzles the citizenry, fences them in, herds them, brands them, whips them into submission, forces them to ante up the sweat of their brows while giving them little in return, and then provides them with little to no outlet for voicing their discontent.

The government has been anticipating and preparing for such an uprising for years. For example, in 2008, a U.S. Army War College report warned that the military must be prepared for a “violent, strategic dislocation inside the United States,” which could be provoked by “unforeseen economic collapse,” “purposeful domestic resistance,” “pervasive public health emergencies” or “loss of functioning political and legal order”—all related to dissent and protests over America’s economic and political disarray.

more: https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/john_whiteheads_commentary/the_bundy_paradigm_will_you_be_a_rebel_revolutionary_or_a_slave


Why can't we just be free? 

[AnonyMint]

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

[tvbcof]

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

The constitution was written in the context of inventing and designing Federal power.  The dudes wouldn't have been cooperating in writing the stuff at all otherwise.  Good grief but you are a tard!  Of course the designers had concerns about the powers that they were designing as would any rational person then and now, and a lot of these concerns are reflected in their documents.

 - edit:  BTW Annoyneygoob, you are not the guy who said "The government better keep their goddamn hands off my medicare!" are you?  Cuz you sound a lot like him.

[Bit_Happy]

Balance of Power is a sad joke now, but...
One of the few good things about an economic collapse is that the States will probably take back some functions/powers that the Feds have grabbed.
The "Balance of Power" between the 3 Federal branches is FUBAR, I have no idea how that gets better.

[tvbcof]

Balance of Power is a sad joke now, but...
One of the few good things about an economic collapse is that the States will probably take back some functions/powers that the Feds have grabbed.
The "Balance of Power" between the 3 Federal branches is FUBAR, I have no idea how that gets better.

I pointed out before that the states are handily winning the absurd 'war on drugs' which is being vigorously defended by the Feds.

For some reason nobody here seems to want to man up to the fact.  I suppose because then one would be drawn to the inevitable conclusion that a bunch of stoners working within the system is actually achieving results while you (wannabe) militia extremaist types are having poor success with your 'strategy' of rubbing your guns, spouting absurdities, and bitching about whatever some leader tells you you should be upset about.

The fact is that the Feds would probably be happy to unload most of the worthless wasteland that they hold in the West if they could find someone to take it, so it should be a moderately easy battle to win.  They get something like $2.00/head/mo for the same thing that private owners would get $16.00/head/mo for as an example (or at least they get that from the vast majority of ranchers who are not deadbeats like Bundy.)

The year after the land is sold, Bundy's going to be paying 8x as much as he is (supposed to be) paying to the American public who own the land, and paying it to Asian investors as do a healthy percentage of renters in the Bay Area who are to ignorant to know what's going on.

[Bit_Happy]

Balance of Power is a sad joke now, but...
One of the few good things about an economic collapse is that the States will probably take back some functions/powers that the Feds have grabbed.
The "Balance of Power" between the 3 Federal branches is FUBAR, I have no idea how that gets better.

I pointed out before that the states are handily winning the absurd 'war on drugs' which is being vigorously defended by the Feds.
...

There has been great progress in the War on Pot.
As long as the Federal ban remains there is still real danger for every "legal" business in CO and other states.
IMO, it's one of the best stories of this century.

[tvbcof]

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.

Damn, you are right!  I was just researching the founding documents and John Henry clearly stated that his vision for Nevada is that the Federal Govt buys it then gives the mineral rights to the Koch brothers while the surface rights are owned by some unnamed Chinese who leases it to Bundy fundies and hires Blackwater mercenaries from South Africa to patrol their holdings.

If the owner of the wasteland is getting market value which the Feds cannot (or do not) then it becomes economically viable for wealthy land barrons to retain private armies.  Indeed, the West actually did look a lot like this in it's early days and other similar areas in other nations still do.  Such a state of being is highly romanticized in media such as Bonanza and the various spaghetti westerns where the militia types do most of their historical research, but it had significant downsides for most of the population.  Most of the population were natives, and most are now dead which kind of illustrates what I'm talking about.  Ultimately when a functional democracy started to appear, and an appreciation that 'the redskins', 'the negro', etc really are actual humans became more the norm, things shifted to what we see today which, as evidenced by the 99.9% of ranchers who do pay their bills, ain't half bad.

[tvbcof]

Looks like the residents of Bunkersville NV loves them some armed anarchists from out-of-state.  Who'd have thunk it?:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/220819896/Letter-to-Sheriff-of-Clark-County-Related-to-Bunkerville-NV

I don't know about you guys, but every day I kneel down and pray that a bunch of gun toting loons from back east turn up and stop me on my county road and demand to see my proof of residence...or demand whatever else they like.

[AnonyMint]

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.

Damn, you are right!  I was just researching the founding documents and John Henry clearly stated that his vision for Nevada is that the Federal Govt buys it then gives the mineral rights to the Koch brothers while the surface rights are owned by some unnamed Chinese who leases it to Bundy fundies and hires Blackwater mercenaries from South Africa to patrol their holdings.

You continue to put forth strawman arguments to support your Communist philosophy.

Ask the Japanese how buying up Hawaii and Rockefeller Center in the 1980s worked out for them. Japan is now bankrupt from that debt-based shopping spree. And they have or will soon have to sell all.

(Again you prove my point that your political philosophy is rooted in subconscious jealousy, combine with a low enough IQ to support your delusional strawman illogic)

If you knew even diddly squat about business and economics, then you would know that the only sustainable owner of the arid West are the ranchers (and in patches the miners).

How can I reason with a Communist moron?

Looks like the residents of Bunkersville NV loves them some armed anarchists from out-of-state.  Who'd have thunk it?:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/220819896/Letter-to-Sheriff-of-Clark-County-Related-to-Bunkerville-NV

I don't know about you guys, but every day I kneel down and pray that a bunch of gun toting loons from back east turn up and stop me on my county road and demand to see my proof of residence...or demand whatever else they like.

This is a political ploy. The residents can gather at a county council meeting and take a vote and see if there is really discord. I doubt it.

If the militia are doing this, it is because of the aggressive war declared on Bundy by the BLM and those liberal activists who want to go squat on the ranches to make some reenactment of Woodstock concerts to try to prove a point that Bundy is a squatter. But the difference is the ranchers are those work the land and make it sustainably productive since the 1870s.

[tvbcof]

Can you believe this NV rancher:

  http://youtu.be/S4VNg9YSQzw

I guess that's what happens when you get an ejumucation...turns a guy into some sort of a pinko faggot who thinks about things like surface run-off and ecology.  Sheesh.  Thank god for fundy-chartered home skoolin' so our country has a future.

[tvbcof]

...
This is a political ploy. The residents can gather at a county council meeting and take a vote and see if there is really discord. I doubt it.
...

Of course.  I doubt it to because it's a public meeting so the armed psychos can attend and see who's not a 'real American' then stop their cars and beat the shit out of them on the public road when they leave.

[AnonyMint]

Can you believe this NVIdaho rancher:

  http://youtu.be/S4VNg9YSQzw

I guess that's what happens when you get an ejumucation...turns a guy into some sort of a pinko faggot who thinks about things like surface run-off and ecology.  Sheesh.  Thank god for fundy-chartered home skoolin' so our country has a future.

There is nothing wrong with local county and state public private partnerships.

The problem is when these metastasize into NWO outcomes, because:

The long-term costs of all this are borne out by the majority of the ill-informed public who are too busy fighting over a myriad useless conservative versus liberal disputes to address the root cause of their suffering. Meanwhile government in its misguided attempt to "help" becomes so indebted that eventually it can no longer service its loans.

The people are blind to the mechanism which is enslaving them and reducing their prosperity. Thus, since they will not change the mechanism, centralization of governance will grow stronger from the current financial crisis

...

References:
Shelby Moore III, Understand Everything Fundamentally
http://www.coolpage.com/commentary/economic/shelby/Understand%20Everything%20Fundamentally.html

...

...
This is a political ploy. The residents can gather at a county council meeting and take a vote and see if there is really discord. I doubt it.
...

Of course.  I doubt it to because it's a public meeting so the armed psychos can attend and see who's not a 'real American' then stop their cars and beat the shit out of them on the public road when they leave.

Readers now know who is the psyops implant here.

Upthread you stated Bundy was receiving welfare, I challenged you to cite some proof. You never did. Now you make claim that militia are beating the shit out of innocent people. Again I challenge to cite some proof.

You are a FUD machine trying to scare people away from their Constitutional rights. You've pretend to be for small government, but all your stated positions in this thread are big government and Communist.