Bundy Caught Lying about "Ancestral Rights"

[Asclepias]

No, the environmentalists work for dim witted people like you who think anything they do is to help the environment.

How about you go and **** over bundy yourself, tough guy? Oh, i forgot you are a giant internet coward without the balls to do anything.

"Dim witted people" are still people clown. Just because you disagree means nothing. You are a nobody.

Getting upset and suggesting I mess with an old man thousands of miles away from me is silly. Slap yourself across the face and get back to reality.

and you are some big shot? I'm a citizen. I am not a nobody. Just because progressives want to demean people down to cogs in a government chain doesn't mean the rest of us think the same.

you are an armchair quarterback, nothing more.

Youre a nobody whining on a messageboard. In other words you are also a armchair quarterback. Youre just mad because your team is losing.

 

[Vigilante]

 

[Sallow]

One can always tell when Sallow is at his end, because he goes off on a tangent. I've been schooling you all morning.

No one is trying to stop people with a legitamate right to vote from voting. Try again.
The confinement was of Non US citizens fighting an undeclared war against the US.Try again.
Also against non US citizens, and you people consider anything except 3 hots and a cot torture.
Again, non US citizens.

You haven't been schooling anyone.

You've been wrong on almost every count.

lol. I notice you slinked away like a coward from the thread where I showed you were wrong on the public use of private land statues for NYC.

Brave sir Sallow bravely ran away. Brave Brave sir Sallow.

I didn't slink way or run away at all there Marty.

Like I said you've been wrong on almost every count. And I might be wrong here..as I really think you've been wrong on every count.

I pointed out that Zuccotti park was in a public square and surrounded by public land.

And I pointed out that the Constitution has NO prohibition from peacefully protesting on private land. Even the New York City Police Chief recognized that.

You are wrong about torture and confinement of people.

And the "non US citizen" thing is crapola. First off, US citizens were subject to torture and indefinite confinement.

Secondly the Constitution extends all rights to all persons under US jurisdiction.

Are you really this ignorant in real life?

 

[Dutch]

Where are all of you property rights cons when it comes to Nebraska farmers not wanting a freaking pipline running through their land.

 

[RKMBrown]

Also eminent domain is when government wants to build something else on your land, not make it a turtle sanctuary.

I'm pretty sure they can make it a turtle sanctuary. I grew up in florida and they we're pretty adept at using eminent domain to buy up private land and turn it into sanctuaries to mitigate more valuable property being turned from sanctuaries to hotels. Sucks when the government is picking the winners and losers and the winner is who ever owns the guys in charge.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Constitutional protections are applicable to all subject to US control.

 

[Asclepias]

Is the local county you pay property taxes to trying to remove a part of your house because of a turtle habitat?

Thats private ownership but yes eminent domain says that the government can take your land provided they pay you fair market value.

Also eminent domain is when government wants to build something else on your land, not make it a turtle sanctuary.

I'm pretty sure you are wrong about that.

 

[RKMBrown]

Where are all of you property rights cons when it comes to Nebraska farmers not wanting a freaking pipline running through their land.

ROFL... is the scary "pipe" gonna put any farmers out of business?

 

[peach174]

"Tyrannical" rule is where you have a small group of people that seek to rule without consent.
And that would be by trying to stop people from voting.

Just who, pray tell, is involved in that practice?

Additionally, who thought:

-Indefinite Confinement without redress or challenge was appropriate.
-Torture was dandy.
-Trial without the ability to examine opposing evidence and heresay being admissible was fine.

That would be you folks.

Yes- like the Dems did when the passed the New Health Care Law against the majority.

Proving that you are a legal U.S. Citizens is not stopping people from voting and makes sure that people are not voting more than one time.

Against what majority? Do you need to see the vote counts? Are you that ignorant?

55% of the people were against it, just about the same then as it is today.
Dems voted over the majority of the people who did not want it.
Than is tyranny when one party votes over the rule of the majority of the people and without the consent of the other party.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The takeaway from this 'crisis' is simple. The far right wing in the United States hates our Government and is a threat to the rule of law and peace in our nation. Fortunately, it appears to be self funded - thus far - and has no central command and control, no intelligence (within both meanings of the term) and is fueled by hate, fear and ignorance. It's likely they'd get their ass handed to them in a casket by any urban gang in the United States.

Militia's should obey the law of the land, i.e. The Constitution of The United States, to wit:

"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;"

"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

It is apparent that the conservative movement which demand the COTUS be understood by the original intent of the authors ignore it when it comes to Militias and in fact challenged the legitimate authority of the United States to enforce the laws of the Union in Southern Arizona.

Liar.

Really, which part of my post is a lie?

 

[Sallow]

Yes- like the Dems did when the passed the New Health Care Law against the majority.

Proving that you are a legal U.S. Citizens is not stopping people from voting and makes sure that people are not voting more than one time.

Against what majority? Do you need to see the vote counts? Are you that ignorant?

55% of the people were against it, just about the same then as it is today.
Dems voted over the majority of the people who did not want it.
Than is tyranny when one party votes over the rule of the majority of the people and without the consent of the other party.

Actually no.

The Majority of people favor government control of health care.

There were people that were in that majority that did not favor the individual mandate, they favored expanding Medicare for all.

And you folks continue to count those people as "against" the ACA.

That's wrong.

 

[Sallow]

Where are all of you property rights cons when it comes to Nebraska farmers not wanting a freaking pipline running through their land.

ROFL... is the scary "pipe" gonna put any farmers out of business?

If there's an Oil Spill?

Yeah..it will.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Yes- like the Dems did when the passed the New Health Care Law against the majority.

Proving that you are a legal U.S. Citizens is not stopping people from voting and makes sure that people are not voting more than one time.

Against what majority? Do you need to see the vote counts? Are you that ignorant?

55% of the people were against it, just about the same then as it is today.
Dems voted over the majority of the people who did not want it.
Than is tyranny when one party votes over the rule of the majority of the people and without the consent of the other party.

Tyranny, really?

1. arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power; despotic abuse of authority. Synonyms: despotism, absolutism, dictatorship.

2. the government or rule of a tyrant or absolute ruler.

3. a state ruled by a tyrant or absolute ruler.

4. oppressive or unjustly severe government on the part of any ruler.

5. undue severity or harshness.

Peach loses.

 

[manifold]

I-Team: Bundy's 'ancestral rights' come under scrutiny - 8 News NOW

Bundy explained his "ancestral rights" to the I-Team."I've lived my lifetime here. My forefathers have been up and down the Virgin Valley here ever since 1877. All these rights that I claim, have been created through pre-emptive rights and beneficial use of the forage and the water and the access and range improvements," Bundy said.
Clark County property records show Cliven Bundy's parents moved from Bundyville, Arizona and bought the 160 acre ranch in 1948 from Raoul and Ruth Leavitt.

I haven't read the thread yet, but I'm sure the rightwingers here have showered Bundy with the same condemnation they gave to Elizabeth SacagaWarren.

 

[martybegan]

Thats private ownership but yes eminent domain says that the government can take your land provided they pay you fair market value.

Also eminent domain is when government wants to build something else on your land, not make it a turtle sanctuary.

I'm pretty sure you are wrong about that.

There has to be a firm reason for eminent domain. Highways and such. And it is done as a last resort instead of buying people out.

 

[martybegan]

Constitutional protections are applicable to all subject to US control.

So the people in Guantanamo can vote and sit on jury? They get 4th amendment rights?

 

[Statistikhengst]

it must make you all warm and fuzzy supporting the concept that the federal government can crush dissent.

Nope. That's the difference between you and me: when you are losing an argument, you decide to try to attach an emotion to a person to give him a negative "look".

But it doesn't work with me. I argue the points.

What [MENTION=25283]Sallow[/MENTION] wrote is actually quite correct. The US Constitution does allow the Federal Goverment to quell rebellions:

Section 8
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and
Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general
Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be
uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and
with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject
of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the
Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin
of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited
Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings
and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and
Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning
Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be
for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union,
suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Right there, in the US Constitution.


Why are you so against the US Constitution?

did what happened out in Nevada reach the level of an insurrection?

And guess what? if the government ever does become so onerous that revolt is necessary, then we write a new one. (Or we restore the old one, what we have now isn't the constitution.)

The Declaration of Independence states that people have the right to revolt against an unresponsive and onerous government. Why do you hate the Declaration of Independence.

(two can play at this game)

I can shorten that for you: if enough states decide to call for a constitutional convention, I am actually for it, but until said time, the Constitution in this form in the law of our land.

You do understand that simple concept, right?

 

[Sallow]

Constitutional protections are applicable to all subject to US control.

So the people in Guantanamo can vote and sit on jury? They get 4th amendment rights?

Those aren't protections.

And yes..the 4th amendment applies to them.

 

[martybegan]

Nope. That's the difference between you and me: when you are losing an argument, you decide to try to attach an emotion to a person to give him a negative "look".

But it doesn't work with me. I argue the points.

What [MENTION=25283]Sallow[/MENTION] wrote is actually quite correct. The US Constitution does allow the Federal Goverment to quell rebellions:





Right there, in the US Constitution.


Why are you so against the US Constitution?

did what happened out in Nevada reach the level of an insurrection?

And guess what? if the government ever does become so onerous that revolt is necessary, then we write a new one. (Or we restore the old one, what we have now isn't the constitution.)

The Declaration of Independence states that people have the right to revolt against an unresponsive and onerous government. Why do you hate the Declaration of Independence.

(two can play at this game)

I can shorten that for you: if enough states decide to call for a constitutional convention, I am actually for it, but until said time, the Constutition in this form in the law of our land.

You do understand that simple concept, right?

it is the law of the land, until such time as changed by the methods listed in the constitution, or rendered invalid by a revolution.

So you are saying the government could do basically anything, go against the constitution, and you would just accept it, or call out for a constitutional convention? If it gets that bad the only thing a convention would do is make it easier to round you up.

 

[RKMBrown]

Constitutional protections are applicable to all subject to US control.

Some yes. Not all.