Completely different? Bill Clinton's feds slaughtered about 80 (black and white) men women and children with tanks and poison gas. Was the motive different? Clinton's feds could have captured Koresch at the nearest 7-11.
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
For Those Supporting the Portland Arrests... How Quickly the Bundy Group Members Are Forgotten
- Thread starter Lewdog
- Start date
Lewdog
Gold Member
- Thread starter
- #122
There is nothing in your link about Trump extending asset forfeiture.An anarchist throwing fireworks and mortars at federal agents got hit by nonofficer shot a peaceful protestor in the face?And those that did that should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.Portland protesters are using lasers against police officers, and it is feared that three of those so wounded in less than 15 seconds may never see again. Just shootin' the laser gunners sounds good to me.I forget ... was Bundy burning down The Target?
Trump didn't send federal officers for burning down a Target, he said it was to protect federal property. Try to keep on subject.
I forget----were the bundy people trashing the lands upon which they had descended? Were people dying daily as a result of the BUNDY GANG?
Yes they trashed the building and there was a shoot out. The reason for the occupation was because the cattle ranchers were setting ILLEGAL fires on the federal grazing lands.
You forget Lew...that was Righteous protest.
ok ----I forget-----what were they righteously protesting? Why were cattle ranchers setting
fires on federal grazing lands----that sounds like a
serious crime to me but not as bad as the urban
nitemare ongoing by BLM
She was being sarcastic.
I got the note of sarcasm-----but still do not see how
the two issues can be conflated
How can you not see it? Trump justified sending the federal troops to PROTECT federal buildings and property.
The Bundy group occupied and damaged federal property, yet Trump pardoned them.
Why was it ok for the Bundy group to occupy and damage federal land and buildings, but he needs to send federal officers to arrest others for doing it in Portland? It's quite simple. Either you say both are just exercising their 1st Amendment rights to protest, OR both are guilty of damaging federal property. The only difference is who the 2 groups are.
Should the officer that shot a peaceful protestor in the face, fracturing his skull be prosecuted?I don't support corrupt democrats seizing private property to enrich democrats.There was no destruction. Trash was left behind. Someone posted pictures. Nothing was destroyed. A corrupt democrat administration, Biden was vice president, tried to seize this family's ranch to enrich the Democrat speaker's son. The federal government under shitstain obama was completely corrupt. They seized the Bundy's cattle. The conduct was so egregious that not a single auction, slaughterhouse or storage facility would take a single head of stolen cattle. Cowboys went and got all those cattle back. The Bundy family had a legitimate grievance. Protesting the civil war is NOT a legitimate grievance.In the Bundy case, that federal property wasnt in jeapordy of being destroyed.I forget ... was Bundy burning down The Target?
Trump didn't send federal officers for burning down a Target, he said it was to protect federal property. Try to keep on subject.
Oh? They caused destruction. Splitting hairs here.
Wrong. The federal government REVOKED their rights to graze on federal land because Bundy quit paying the taxes for doing so and Bundy continued to do it anyway. So they confiscated cattle that were illegally on federal land.
You've made your stance quite obvious that you only care about laws being enforced as long as it is by someone that you don't support. View attachment 367292
Then you don't follow the laws very much. Under Trump the federal government has EXTENDED the laws that allow seizure of private property of citizens after an arrest but pre-conviction. So you against that? Are you against Trump doing that?
Trump Gives Thumbs-Up To Cops Taking More Stuff Away From People
The president endorsed civil asset forfeiture, which lets police seize even innocent people's property.www.huffpost.com
Actually, you didn't show that Trump extended asset forfeiture, just that he thought was a good thing, and used properly, it is.Is this an admission you lost the argument? Now comes the deflection to an argument you thunk you can win with Huffpo articles.An anarchist throwing fireworks and mortars at federal agents got hit by nonofficer shot a peaceful protestor in the face?And those that did that should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.Portland protesters are using lasers against police officers, and it is feared that three of those so wounded in less than 15 seconds may never see again. Just shootin' the laser gunners sounds good to me.I forget ... was Bundy burning down The Target?
Trump didn't send federal officers for burning down a Target, he said it was to protect federal property. Try to keep on subject.
I forget----were the bundy people trashing the lands upon which they had descended? Were people dying daily as a result of the BUNDY GANG?
Yes they trashed the building and there was a shoot out. The reason for the occupation was because the cattle ranchers were setting ILLEGAL fires on the federal grazing lands.
You forget Lew...that was Righteous protest.
ok ----I forget-----what were they righteously protesting? Why were cattle ranchers setting
fires on federal grazing lands----that sounds like a
serious crime to me but not as bad as the urban
nitemare ongoing by BLM
She was being sarcastic.
I got the note of sarcasm-----but still do not see how
the two issues can be conflated
How can you not see it? Trump justified sending the federal troops to PROTECT federal buildings and property.
The Bundy group occupied and damaged federal property, yet Trump pardoned them.
Why was it ok for the Bundy group to occupy and damage federal land and buildings, but he needs to send federal officers to arrest others for doing it in Portland? It's quite simple. Either you say both are just exercising their 1st Amendment rights to protest, OR both are guilty of damaging federal property. The only difference is who the 2 groups are.
Should the officer that shot a peaceful protestor in the face, fracturing his skull be prosecuted?I don't support corrupt democrats seizing private property to enrich democrats.There was no destruction. Trash was left behind. Someone posted pictures. Nothing was destroyed. A corrupt democrat administration, Biden was vice president, tried to seize this family's ranch to enrich the Democrat speaker's son. The federal government under shitstain obama was completely corrupt. They seized the Bundy's cattle. The conduct was so egregious that not a single auction, slaughterhouse or storage facility would take a single head of stolen cattle. Cowboys went and got all those cattle back. The Bundy family had a legitimate grievance. Protesting the civil war is NOT a legitimate grievance.In the Bundy case, that federal property wasnt in jeapordy of being destroyed.I forget ... was Bundy burning down The Target?
Trump didn't send federal officers for burning down a Target, he said it was to protect federal property. Try to keep on subject.
Oh? They caused destruction. Splitting hairs here.
Wrong. The federal government REVOKED their rights to graze on federal land because Bundy quit paying the taxes for doing so and Bundy continued to do it anyway. So they confiscated cattle that were illegally on federal land.
You've made your stance quite obvious that you only care about laws being enforced as long as it is by someone that you don't support. View attachment 367292
Then you don't follow the laws very much. Under Trump the federal government has EXTENDED the laws that allow seizure of private property of citizens after an arrest but pre-conviction. So you against that? Are you against Trump doing that?
Trump Gives Thumbs-Up To Cops Taking More Stuff Away From People
The president endorsed civil asset forfeiture, which lets police seize even innocent people's property.
Communists always make me feel like I need to use hand sanitizer and brush my teeth.
Lost what argument? You said, "I don't support corrupt democrats seizing private property to enrich democrats."
I showed you where TRUMP extended the civil asset forfeiture laws. You can do a search and look for any source you want if you don't like mine. It doesn't change that. So are you against what Trump did?
He had the DOJ EXTEND it into states that had stopped doing it. You need to educate yourself and pay more attention to what he does, not just his Twitter.
- Dec 29, 2008
- 19,821
- 4,828
- 280
You are confused. Nowhere in the letter does it extend asset forfeiture into states that don't already have it, which I imagine are few if any. It discusses only how the state and federal governments will deal with such assets if they are seized by the state.There is nothing in your link about Trump extending asset forfeiture.An anarchist throwing fireworks and mortars at federal agents got hit by nonofficer shot a peaceful protestor in the face?And those that did that should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.Portland protesters are using lasers against police officers, and it is feared that three of those so wounded in less than 15 seconds may never see again. Just shootin' the laser gunners sounds good to me.I forget ... was Bundy burning down The Target?
Trump didn't send federal officers for burning down a Target, he said it was to protect federal property. Try to keep on subject.
I forget----were the bundy people trashing the lands upon which they had descended? Were people dying daily as a result of the BUNDY GANG?
Yes they trashed the building and there was a shoot out. The reason for the occupation was because the cattle ranchers were setting ILLEGAL fires on the federal grazing lands.
You forget Lew...that was Righteous protest.
ok ----I forget-----what were they righteously protesting? Why were cattle ranchers setting
fires on federal grazing lands----that sounds like a
serious crime to me but not as bad as the urban
nitemare ongoing by BLM
She was being sarcastic.
I got the note of sarcasm-----but still do not see how
the two issues can be conflated
How can you not see it? Trump justified sending the federal troops to PROTECT federal buildings and property.
The Bundy group occupied and damaged federal property, yet Trump pardoned them.
Why was it ok for the Bundy group to occupy and damage federal land and buildings, but he needs to send federal officers to arrest others for doing it in Portland? It's quite simple. Either you say both are just exercising their 1st Amendment rights to protest, OR both are guilty of damaging federal property. The only difference is who the 2 groups are.
Should the officer that shot a peaceful protestor in the face, fracturing his skull be prosecuted?I don't support corrupt democrats seizing private property to enrich democrats.There was no destruction. Trash was left behind. Someone posted pictures. Nothing was destroyed. A corrupt democrat administration, Biden was vice president, tried to seize this family's ranch to enrich the Democrat speaker's son. The federal government under shitstain obama was completely corrupt. They seized the Bundy's cattle. The conduct was so egregious that not a single auction, slaughterhouse or storage facility would take a single head of stolen cattle. Cowboys went and got all those cattle back. The Bundy family had a legitimate grievance. Protesting the civil war is NOT a legitimate grievance.In the Bundy case, that federal property wasnt in jeapordy of being destroyed.I forget ... was Bundy burning down The Target?
Trump didn't send federal officers for burning down a Target, he said it was to protect federal property. Try to keep on subject.
Oh? They caused destruction. Splitting hairs here.
Wrong. The federal government REVOKED their rights to graze on federal land because Bundy quit paying the taxes for doing so and Bundy continued to do it anyway. So they confiscated cattle that were illegally on federal land.
You've made your stance quite obvious that you only care about laws being enforced as long as it is by someone that you don't support. View attachment 367292
Then you don't follow the laws very much. Under Trump the federal government has EXTENDED the laws that allow seizure of private property of citizens after an arrest but pre-conviction. So you against that? Are you against Trump doing that?
Trump Gives Thumbs-Up To Cops Taking More Stuff Away From People
The president endorsed civil asset forfeiture, which lets police seize even innocent people's property.
Actually, you didn't show that Trump extended asset forfeiture, just that he thought was a good thing, and used properly, it is.Is this an admission you lost the argument? Now comes the deflection to an argument you thunk you can win with Huffpo articles.An anarchist throwing fireworks and mortars at federal agents got hit by nonofficer shot a peaceful protestor in the face?And those that did that should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.Portland protesters are using lasers against police officers, and it is feared that three of those so wounded in less than 15 seconds may never see again. Just shootin' the laser gunners sounds good to me.I forget ... was Bundy burning down The Target?
Trump didn't send federal officers for burning down a Target, he said it was to protect federal property. Try to keep on subject.
I forget----were the bundy people trashing the lands upon which they had descended? Were people dying daily as a result of the BUNDY GANG?
Yes they trashed the building and there was a shoot out. The reason for the occupation was because the cattle ranchers were setting ILLEGAL fires on the federal grazing lands.
You forget Lew...that was Righteous protest.
ok ----I forget-----what were they righteously protesting? Why were cattle ranchers setting
fires on federal grazing lands----that sounds like a
serious crime to me but not as bad as the urban
nitemare ongoing by BLM
She was being sarcastic.
I got the note of sarcasm-----but still do not see how
the two issues can be conflated
How can you not see it? Trump justified sending the federal troops to PROTECT federal buildings and property.
The Bundy group occupied and damaged federal property, yet Trump pardoned them.
Why was it ok for the Bundy group to occupy and damage federal land and buildings, but he needs to send federal officers to arrest others for doing it in Portland? It's quite simple. Either you say both are just exercising their 1st Amendment rights to protest, OR both are guilty of damaging federal property. The only difference is who the 2 groups are.
Should the officer that shot a peaceful protestor in the face, fracturing his skull be prosecuted?I don't support corrupt democrats seizing private property to enrich democrats.There was no destruction. Trash was left behind. Someone posted pictures. Nothing was destroyed. A corrupt democrat administration, Biden was vice president, tried to seize this family's ranch to enrich the Democrat speaker's son. The federal government under shitstain obama was completely corrupt. They seized the Bundy's cattle. The conduct was so egregious that not a single auction, slaughterhouse or storage facility would take a single head of stolen cattle. Cowboys went and got all those cattle back. The Bundy family had a legitimate grievance. Protesting the civil war is NOT a legitimate grievance.In the Bundy case, that federal property wasnt in jeapordy of being destroyed.I forget ... was Bundy burning down The Target?
Trump didn't send federal officers for burning down a Target, he said it was to protect federal property. Try to keep on subject.
Oh? They caused destruction. Splitting hairs here.
Wrong. The federal government REVOKED their rights to graze on federal land because Bundy quit paying the taxes for doing so and Bundy continued to do it anyway. So they confiscated cattle that were illegally on federal land.
You've made your stance quite obvious that you only care about laws being enforced as long as it is by someone that you don't support. View attachment 367292
Then you don't follow the laws very much. Under Trump the federal government has EXTENDED the laws that allow seizure of private property of citizens after an arrest but pre-conviction. So you against that? Are you against Trump doing that?
Trump Gives Thumbs-Up To Cops Taking More Stuff Away From People
The president endorsed civil asset forfeiture, which lets police seize even innocent people's property.
Communists always make me feel like I need to use hand sanitizer and brush my teeth.
Lost what argument? You said, "I don't support corrupt democrats seizing private property to enrich democrats."
I showed you where TRUMP extended the civil asset forfeiture laws. You can do a search and look for any source you want if you don't like mine. It doesn't change that. So are you against what Trump did?
He had the DOJ EXTEND it into states that had stopped doing it. You need to educate yourself and pay more attention to what he does, not just his Twitter.View attachment 367299View attachment 367300View attachment 367301
Lewdog
Gold Member
- Thread starter
- #124
You are confused. Nowhere in the letter does it extend asset forfeiture into states that don't already have it, which I imagine are few if any. It discusses only how the state and federal governments will deal with such assets if they are seized by the state.There is nothing in your link about Trump extending asset forfeiture.An anarchist throwing fireworks and mortars at federal agents got hit by nonofficer shot a peaceful protestor in the face?And those that did that should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.Portland protesters are using lasers against police officers, and it is feared that three of those so wounded in less than 15 seconds may never see again. Just shootin' the laser gunners sounds good to me.I forget ... was Bundy burning down The Target?
Trump didn't send federal officers for burning down a Target, he said it was to protect federal property. Try to keep on subject.
I forget----were the bundy people trashing the lands upon which they had descended? Were people dying daily as a result of the BUNDY GANG?
Yes they trashed the building and there was a shoot out. The reason for the occupation was because the cattle ranchers were setting ILLEGAL fires on the federal grazing lands.
You forget Lew...that was Righteous protest.
ok ----I forget-----what were they righteously protesting? Why were cattle ranchers setting
fires on federal grazing lands----that sounds like a
serious crime to me but not as bad as the urban
nitemare ongoing by BLM
She was being sarcastic.
I got the note of sarcasm-----but still do not see how
the two issues can be conflated
How can you not see it? Trump justified sending the federal troops to PROTECT federal buildings and property.
The Bundy group occupied and damaged federal property, yet Trump pardoned them.
Why was it ok for the Bundy group to occupy and damage federal land and buildings, but he needs to send federal officers to arrest others for doing it in Portland? It's quite simple. Either you say both are just exercising their 1st Amendment rights to protest, OR both are guilty of damaging federal property. The only difference is who the 2 groups are.
Should the officer that shot a peaceful protestor in the face, fracturing his skull be prosecuted?I don't support corrupt democrats seizing private property to enrich democrats.There was no destruction. Trash was left behind. Someone posted pictures. Nothing was destroyed. A corrupt democrat administration, Biden was vice president, tried to seize this family's ranch to enrich the Democrat speaker's son. The federal government under shitstain obama was completely corrupt. They seized the Bundy's cattle. The conduct was so egregious that not a single auction, slaughterhouse or storage facility would take a single head of stolen cattle. Cowboys went and got all those cattle back. The Bundy family had a legitimate grievance. Protesting the civil war is NOT a legitimate grievance.In the Bundy case, that federal property wasnt in jeapordy of being destroyed.I forget ... was Bundy burning down The Target?
Trump didn't send federal officers for burning down a Target, he said it was to protect federal property. Try to keep on subject.
Oh? They caused destruction. Splitting hairs here.
Wrong. The federal government REVOKED their rights to graze on federal land because Bundy quit paying the taxes for doing so and Bundy continued to do it anyway. So they confiscated cattle that were illegally on federal land.
You've made your stance quite obvious that you only care about laws being enforced as long as it is by someone that you don't support. View attachment 367292
Then you don't follow the laws very much. Under Trump the federal government has EXTENDED the laws that allow seizure of private property of citizens after an arrest but pre-conviction. So you against that? Are you against Trump doing that?
Trump Gives Thumbs-Up To Cops Taking More Stuff Away From People
The president endorsed civil asset forfeiture, which lets police seize even innocent people's property.
Actually, you didn't show that Trump extended asset forfeiture, just that he thought was a good thing, and used properly, it is.Is this an admission you lost the argument? Now comes the deflection to an argument you thunk you can win with Huffpo articles.An anarchist throwing fireworks and mortars at federal agents got hit by nonofficer shot a peaceful protestor in the face?And those that did that should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.Portland protesters are using lasers against police officers, and it is feared that three of those so wounded in less than 15 seconds may never see again. Just shootin' the laser gunners sounds good to me.I forget ... was Bundy burning down The Target?
Trump didn't send federal officers for burning down a Target, he said it was to protect federal property. Try to keep on subject.
I forget----were the bundy people trashing the lands upon which they had descended? Were people dying daily as a result of the BUNDY GANG?
Yes they trashed the building and there was a shoot out. The reason for the occupation was because the cattle ranchers were setting ILLEGAL fires on the federal grazing lands.
You forget Lew...that was Righteous protest.
ok ----I forget-----what were they righteously protesting? Why were cattle ranchers setting
fires on federal grazing lands----that sounds like a
serious crime to me but not as bad as the urban
nitemare ongoing by BLM
She was being sarcastic.
I got the note of sarcasm-----but still do not see how
the two issues can be conflated
How can you not see it? Trump justified sending the federal troops to PROTECT federal buildings and property.
The Bundy group occupied and damaged federal property, yet Trump pardoned them.
Why was it ok for the Bundy group to occupy and damage federal land and buildings, but he needs to send federal officers to arrest others for doing it in Portland? It's quite simple. Either you say both are just exercising their 1st Amendment rights to protest, OR both are guilty of damaging federal property. The only difference is who the 2 groups are.
Should the officer that shot a peaceful protestor in the face, fracturing his skull be prosecuted?I don't support corrupt democrats seizing private property to enrich democrats.There was no destruction. Trash was left behind. Someone posted pictures. Nothing was destroyed. A corrupt democrat administration, Biden was vice president, tried to seize this family's ranch to enrich the Democrat speaker's son. The federal government under shitstain obama was completely corrupt. They seized the Bundy's cattle. The conduct was so egregious that not a single auction, slaughterhouse or storage facility would take a single head of stolen cattle. Cowboys went and got all those cattle back. The Bundy family had a legitimate grievance. Protesting the civil war is NOT a legitimate grievance.In the Bundy case, that federal property wasnt in jeapordy of being destroyed.I forget ... was Bundy burning down The Target?
Trump didn't send federal officers for burning down a Target, he said it was to protect federal property. Try to keep on subject.
Oh? They caused destruction. Splitting hairs here.
Wrong. The federal government REVOKED their rights to graze on federal land because Bundy quit paying the taxes for doing so and Bundy continued to do it anyway. So they confiscated cattle that were illegally on federal land.
You've made your stance quite obvious that you only care about laws being enforced as long as it is by someone that you don't support. View attachment 367292
Then you don't follow the laws very much. Under Trump the federal government has EXTENDED the laws that allow seizure of private property of citizens after an arrest but pre-conviction. So you against that? Are you against Trump doing that?
Trump Gives Thumbs-Up To Cops Taking More Stuff Away From People
The president endorsed civil asset forfeiture, which lets police seize even innocent people's property.
Communists always make me feel like I need to use hand sanitizer and brush my teeth.
Lost what argument? You said, "I don't support corrupt democrats seizing private property to enrich democrats."
I showed you where TRUMP extended the civil asset forfeiture laws. You can do a search and look for any source you want if you don't like mine. It doesn't change that. So are you against what Trump did?
He had the DOJ EXTEND it into states that had stopped doing it. You need to educate yourself and pay more attention to what he does, not just his Twitter.View attachment 367299View attachment 367300View attachment 367301
Wrong. It extends it into states that had stopped the practice. It is making states comply to the rule through federal mandate.
Dale Smith
Platinum Member
Could be because these little commie fucks are rioting, destroying property and attacking those they deem as non-commies? BTW, I don't believe the participants at the Wildlife standoff in Oregon did any damage whatsoever and a media that would lie and help with the cover-up of the Lavoy Finicum ambush are not above lying about "damage".I forget ... was Bundy burning down The Target?
Trump didn't send federal officers for burning down a Target, he said it was to protect federal property. Try to keep on subject.
You think the criminals tearing down statues and burning Federal properties weren't the same ones who looted and burned down The Target? They were just warming up.
Trump justified the federal officers by saying they were protecting federal property. Can you stay on topic?
So why did he pardon the Bundy group members but are having the Portland protesters arrested?
Your precious commie pals are not being held in indefinite detention or have been officially arrested or if so, denied bail like those at the Stand-off. Personally to me, commie lives don't matter to me at all. I certainly remember the chortling of the leftard clown posse about the plight of those that stood up for the family the BLM was trying to remove from their land. They were down right giddy about it......so leftards can go fuck themselves.
- Dec 29, 2008
- 19,821
- 4,828
- 280
That is simply not true. It only addresses the issue of seized assets where both federal and state laws were violated. The federal government cannot mandate state law or order states to enforce federal laws. If the state hasn't already seized assets, this letter has no relevance.You are confused. Nowhere in the letter does it extend asset forfeiture into states that don't already have it, which I imagine are few if any. It discusses only how the state and federal governments will deal with such assets if they are seized by the state.There is nothing in your link about Trump extending asset forfeiture.An anarchist throwing fireworks and mortars at federal agents got hit by nonofficer shot a peaceful protestor in the face?And those that did that should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.Portland protesters are using lasers against police officers, and it is feared that three of those so wounded in less than 15 seconds may never see again. Just shootin' the laser gunners sounds good to me.I forget ... was Bundy burning down The Target?
Trump didn't send federal officers for burning down a Target, he said it was to protect federal property. Try to keep on subject.
I forget----were the bundy people trashing the lands upon which they had descended? Were people dying daily as a result of the BUNDY GANG?
Yes they trashed the building and there was a shoot out. The reason for the occupation was because the cattle ranchers were setting ILLEGAL fires on the federal grazing lands.
You forget Lew...that was Righteous protest.
ok ----I forget-----what were they righteously protesting? Why were cattle ranchers setting
fires on federal grazing lands----that sounds like a
serious crime to me but not as bad as the urban
nitemare ongoing by BLM
She was being sarcastic.
I got the note of sarcasm-----but still do not see how
the two issues can be conflated
How can you not see it? Trump justified sending the federal troops to PROTECT federal buildings and property.
The Bundy group occupied and damaged federal property, yet Trump pardoned them.
Why was it ok for the Bundy group to occupy and damage federal land and buildings, but he needs to send federal officers to arrest others for doing it in Portland? It's quite simple. Either you say both are just exercising their 1st Amendment rights to protest, OR both are guilty of damaging federal property. The only difference is who the 2 groups are.
Should the officer that shot a peaceful protestor in the face, fracturing his skull be prosecuted?I don't support corrupt democrats seizing private property to enrich democrats.There was no destruction. Trash was left behind. Someone posted pictures. Nothing was destroyed. A corrupt democrat administration, Biden was vice president, tried to seize this family's ranch to enrich the Democrat speaker's son. The federal government under shitstain obama was completely corrupt. They seized the Bundy's cattle. The conduct was so egregious that not a single auction, slaughterhouse or storage facility would take a single head of stolen cattle. Cowboys went and got all those cattle back. The Bundy family had a legitimate grievance. Protesting the civil war is NOT a legitimate grievance.In the Bundy case, that federal property wasnt in jeapordy of being destroyed.I forget ... was Bundy burning down The Target?
Trump didn't send federal officers for burning down a Target, he said it was to protect federal property. Try to keep on subject.
Oh? They caused destruction. Splitting hairs here.
Wrong. The federal government REVOKED their rights to graze on federal land because Bundy quit paying the taxes for doing so and Bundy continued to do it anyway. So they confiscated cattle that were illegally on federal land.
You've made your stance quite obvious that you only care about laws being enforced as long as it is by someone that you don't support. View attachment 367292
Then you don't follow the laws very much. Under Trump the federal government has EXTENDED the laws that allow seizure of private property of citizens after an arrest but pre-conviction. So you against that? Are you against Trump doing that?
Trump Gives Thumbs-Up To Cops Taking More Stuff Away From People
The president endorsed civil asset forfeiture, which lets police seize even innocent people's property.
Actually, you didn't show that Trump extended asset forfeiture, just that he thought was a good thing, and used properly, it is.Is this an admission you lost the argument? Now comes the deflection to an argument you thunk you can win with Huffpo articles.An anarchist throwing fireworks and mortars at federal agents got hit by nonofficer shot a peaceful protestor in the face?And those that did that should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.Portland protesters are using lasers against police officers, and it is feared that three of those so wounded in less than 15 seconds may never see again. Just shootin' the laser gunners sounds good to me.I forget ... was Bundy burning down The Target?
Trump didn't send federal officers for burning down a Target, he said it was to protect federal property. Try to keep on subject.
I forget----were the bundy people trashing the lands upon which they had descended? Were people dying daily as a result of the BUNDY GANG?
Yes they trashed the building and there was a shoot out. The reason for the occupation was because the cattle ranchers were setting ILLEGAL fires on the federal grazing lands.
You forget Lew...that was Righteous protest.
ok ----I forget-----what were they righteously protesting? Why were cattle ranchers setting
fires on federal grazing lands----that sounds like a
serious crime to me but not as bad as the urban
nitemare ongoing by BLM
She was being sarcastic.
I got the note of sarcasm-----but still do not see how
the two issues can be conflated
How can you not see it? Trump justified sending the federal troops to PROTECT federal buildings and property.
The Bundy group occupied and damaged federal property, yet Trump pardoned them.
Why was it ok for the Bundy group to occupy and damage federal land and buildings, but he needs to send federal officers to arrest others for doing it in Portland? It's quite simple. Either you say both are just exercising their 1st Amendment rights to protest, OR both are guilty of damaging federal property. The only difference is who the 2 groups are.
Should the officer that shot a peaceful protestor in the face, fracturing his skull be prosecuted?I don't support corrupt democrats seizing private property to enrich democrats.There was no destruction. Trash was left behind. Someone posted pictures. Nothing was destroyed. A corrupt democrat administration, Biden was vice president, tried to seize this family's ranch to enrich the Democrat speaker's son. The federal government under shitstain obama was completely corrupt. They seized the Bundy's cattle. The conduct was so egregious that not a single auction, slaughterhouse or storage facility would take a single head of stolen cattle. Cowboys went and got all those cattle back. The Bundy family had a legitimate grievance. Protesting the civil war is NOT a legitimate grievance.In the Bundy case, that federal property wasnt in jeapordy of being destroyed.I forget ... was Bundy burning down The Target?
Trump didn't send federal officers for burning down a Target, he said it was to protect federal property. Try to keep on subject.
Oh? They caused destruction. Splitting hairs here.
Wrong. The federal government REVOKED their rights to graze on federal land because Bundy quit paying the taxes for doing so and Bundy continued to do it anyway. So they confiscated cattle that were illegally on federal land.
You've made your stance quite obvious that you only care about laws being enforced as long as it is by someone that you don't support. View attachment 367292
Then you don't follow the laws very much. Under Trump the federal government has EXTENDED the laws that allow seizure of private property of citizens after an arrest but pre-conviction. So you against that? Are you against Trump doing that?
Trump Gives Thumbs-Up To Cops Taking More Stuff Away From People
The president endorsed civil asset forfeiture, which lets police seize even innocent people's property.
Communists always make me feel like I need to use hand sanitizer and brush my teeth.
Lost what argument? You said, "I don't support corrupt democrats seizing private property to enrich democrats."
I showed you where TRUMP extended the civil asset forfeiture laws. You can do a search and look for any source you want if you don't like mine. It doesn't change that. So are you against what Trump did?
He had the DOJ EXTEND it into states that had stopped doing it. You need to educate yourself and pay more attention to what he does, not just his Twitter.View attachment 367299View attachment 367300View attachment 367301
Wrong. It extends it into states that had stopped the practice. It is making states comply to the rule through federal mandate.
- Moderator
- #127
Trump conflates law and order with authoritarianism.You are confused. Nowhere in the letter does it extend asset forfeiture into states that don't already have it, which I imagine are few if any. It discusses only how the state and federal governments will deal with such assets if they are seized by the state.There is nothing in your link about Trump extending asset forfeiture.An anarchist throwing fireworks and mortars at federal agents got hit by nonofficer shot a peaceful protestor in the face?And those that did that should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.Portland protesters are using lasers against police officers, and it is feared that three of those so wounded in less than 15 seconds may never see again. Just shootin' the laser gunners sounds good to me.I forget ... was Bundy burning down The Target?
Trump didn't send federal officers for burning down a Target, he said it was to protect federal property. Try to keep on subject.
I forget----were the bundy people trashing the lands upon which they had descended? Were people dying daily as a result of the BUNDY GANG?
Yes they trashed the building and there was a shoot out. The reason for the occupation was because the cattle ranchers were setting ILLEGAL fires on the federal grazing lands.
You forget Lew...that was Righteous protest.
ok ----I forget-----what were they righteously protesting? Why were cattle ranchers setting
fires on federal grazing lands----that sounds like a
serious crime to me but not as bad as the urban
nitemare ongoing by BLM
She was being sarcastic.
I got the note of sarcasm-----but still do not see how
the two issues can be conflated
How can you not see it? Trump justified sending the federal troops to PROTECT federal buildings and property.
The Bundy group occupied and damaged federal property, yet Trump pardoned them.
Why was it ok for the Bundy group to occupy and damage federal land and buildings, but he needs to send federal officers to arrest others for doing it in Portland? It's quite simple. Either you say both are just exercising their 1st Amendment rights to protest, OR both are guilty of damaging federal property. The only difference is who the 2 groups are.
Should the officer that shot a peaceful protestor in the face, fracturing his skull be prosecuted?I don't support corrupt democrats seizing private property to enrich democrats.There was no destruction. Trash was left behind. Someone posted pictures. Nothing was destroyed. A corrupt democrat administration, Biden was vice president, tried to seize this family's ranch to enrich the Democrat speaker's son. The federal government under shitstain obama was completely corrupt. They seized the Bundy's cattle. The conduct was so egregious that not a single auction, slaughterhouse or storage facility would take a single head of stolen cattle. Cowboys went and got all those cattle back. The Bundy family had a legitimate grievance. Protesting the civil war is NOT a legitimate grievance.In the Bundy case, that federal property wasnt in jeapordy of being destroyed.I forget ... was Bundy burning down The Target?
Trump didn't send federal officers for burning down a Target, he said it was to protect federal property. Try to keep on subject.
Oh? They caused destruction. Splitting hairs here.
Wrong. The federal government REVOKED their rights to graze on federal land because Bundy quit paying the taxes for doing so and Bundy continued to do it anyway. So they confiscated cattle that were illegally on federal land.
You've made your stance quite obvious that you only care about laws being enforced as long as it is by someone that you don't support. View attachment 367292
Then you don't follow the laws very much. Under Trump the federal government has EXTENDED the laws that allow seizure of private property of citizens after an arrest but pre-conviction. So you against that? Are you against Trump doing that?
Trump Gives Thumbs-Up To Cops Taking More Stuff Away From People
The president endorsed civil asset forfeiture, which lets police seize even innocent people's property.
Actually, you didn't show that Trump extended asset forfeiture, just that he thought was a good thing, and used properly, it is.Is this an admission you lost the argument? Now comes the deflection to an argument you thunk you can win with Huffpo articles.An anarchist throwing fireworks and mortars at federal agents got hit by nonofficer shot a peaceful protestor in the face?And those that did that should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.Portland protesters are using lasers against police officers, and it is feared that three of those so wounded in less than 15 seconds may never see again. Just shootin' the laser gunners sounds good to me.I forget ... was Bundy burning down The Target?
Trump didn't send federal officers for burning down a Target, he said it was to protect federal property. Try to keep on subject.
I forget----were the bundy people trashing the lands upon which they had descended? Were people dying daily as a result of the BUNDY GANG?
Yes they trashed the building and there was a shoot out. The reason for the occupation was because the cattle ranchers were setting ILLEGAL fires on the federal grazing lands.
You forget Lew...that was Righteous protest.
ok ----I forget-----what were they righteously protesting? Why were cattle ranchers setting
fires on federal grazing lands----that sounds like a
serious crime to me but not as bad as the urban
nitemare ongoing by BLM
She was being sarcastic.
I got the note of sarcasm-----but still do not see how
the two issues can be conflated
How can you not see it? Trump justified sending the federal troops to PROTECT federal buildings and property.
The Bundy group occupied and damaged federal property, yet Trump pardoned them.
Why was it ok for the Bundy group to occupy and damage federal land and buildings, but he needs to send federal officers to arrest others for doing it in Portland? It's quite simple. Either you say both are just exercising their 1st Amendment rights to protest, OR both are guilty of damaging federal property. The only difference is who the 2 groups are.
Should the officer that shot a peaceful protestor in the face, fracturing his skull be prosecuted?I don't support corrupt democrats seizing private property to enrich democrats.There was no destruction. Trash was left behind. Someone posted pictures. Nothing was destroyed. A corrupt democrat administration, Biden was vice president, tried to seize this family's ranch to enrich the Democrat speaker's son. The federal government under shitstain obama was completely corrupt. They seized the Bundy's cattle. The conduct was so egregious that not a single auction, slaughterhouse or storage facility would take a single head of stolen cattle. Cowboys went and got all those cattle back. The Bundy family had a legitimate grievance. Protesting the civil war is NOT a legitimate grievance.In the Bundy case, that federal property wasnt in jeapordy of being destroyed.I forget ... was Bundy burning down The Target?
Trump didn't send federal officers for burning down a Target, he said it was to protect federal property. Try to keep on subject.
Oh? They caused destruction. Splitting hairs here.
Wrong. The federal government REVOKED their rights to graze on federal land because Bundy quit paying the taxes for doing so and Bundy continued to do it anyway. So they confiscated cattle that were illegally on federal land.
You've made your stance quite obvious that you only care about laws being enforced as long as it is by someone that you don't support. View attachment 367292
Then you don't follow the laws very much. Under Trump the federal government has EXTENDED the laws that allow seizure of private property of citizens after an arrest but pre-conviction. So you against that? Are you against Trump doing that?
Trump Gives Thumbs-Up To Cops Taking More Stuff Away From People
The president endorsed civil asset forfeiture, which lets police seize even innocent people's property.
Communists always make me feel like I need to use hand sanitizer and brush my teeth.
Lost what argument? You said, "I don't support corrupt democrats seizing private property to enrich democrats."
I showed you where TRUMP extended the civil asset forfeiture laws. You can do a search and look for any source you want if you don't like mine. It doesn't change that. So are you against what Trump did?
He had the DOJ EXTEND it into states that had stopped doing it. You need to educate yourself and pay more attention to what he does, not just his Twitter.View attachment 367299View attachment 367300View attachment 367301
Wrong. It extends it into states that had stopped the practice. It is making states comply to the rule through federal mandate.
- Dec 29, 2008
- 36,401
- 19,307
- 1,905
Then why arent we seeing authoritarianism?Trump conflates law and order with authoritarianism.You are confused. Nowhere in the letter does it extend asset forfeiture into states that don't already have it, which I imagine are few if any. It discusses only how the state and federal governments will deal with such assets if they are seized by the state.There is nothing in your link about Trump extending asset forfeiture.An anarchist throwing fireworks and mortars at federal agents got hit by nonofficer shot a peaceful protestor in the face?And those that did that should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.Portland protesters are using lasers against police officers, and it is feared that three of those so wounded in less than 15 seconds may never see again. Just shootin' the laser gunners sounds good to me.I forget ... was Bundy burning down The Target?
Trump didn't send federal officers for burning down a Target, he said it was to protect federal property. Try to keep on subject.
I forget----were the bundy people trashing the lands upon which they had descended? Were people dying daily as a result of the BUNDY GANG?
Yes they trashed the building and there was a shoot out. The reason for the occupation was because the cattle ranchers were setting ILLEGAL fires on the federal grazing lands.
You forget Lew...that was Righteous protest.
ok ----I forget-----what were they righteously protesting? Why were cattle ranchers setting
fires on federal grazing lands----that sounds like a
serious crime to me but not as bad as the urban
nitemare ongoing by BLM
She was being sarcastic.
I got the note of sarcasm-----but still do not see how
the two issues can be conflated
How can you not see it? Trump justified sending the federal troops to PROTECT federal buildings and property.
The Bundy group occupied and damaged federal property, yet Trump pardoned them.
Why was it ok for the Bundy group to occupy and damage federal land and buildings, but he needs to send federal officers to arrest others for doing it in Portland? It's quite simple. Either you say both are just exercising their 1st Amendment rights to protest, OR both are guilty of damaging federal property. The only difference is who the 2 groups are.
Should the officer that shot a peaceful protestor in the face, fracturing his skull be prosecuted?I don't support corrupt democrats seizing private property to enrich democrats.There was no destruction. Trash was left behind. Someone posted pictures. Nothing was destroyed. A corrupt democrat administration, Biden was vice president, tried to seize this family's ranch to enrich the Democrat speaker's son. The federal government under shitstain obama was completely corrupt. They seized the Bundy's cattle. The conduct was so egregious that not a single auction, slaughterhouse or storage facility would take a single head of stolen cattle. Cowboys went and got all those cattle back. The Bundy family had a legitimate grievance. Protesting the civil war is NOT a legitimate grievance.In the Bundy case, that federal property wasnt in jeapordy of being destroyed.I forget ... was Bundy burning down The Target?
Trump didn't send federal officers for burning down a Target, he said it was to protect federal property. Try to keep on subject.
Oh? They caused destruction. Splitting hairs here.
Wrong. The federal government REVOKED their rights to graze on federal land because Bundy quit paying the taxes for doing so and Bundy continued to do it anyway. So they confiscated cattle that were illegally on federal land.
You've made your stance quite obvious that you only care about laws being enforced as long as it is by someone that you don't support. View attachment 367292
Then you don't follow the laws very much. Under Trump the federal government has EXTENDED the laws that allow seizure of private property of citizens after an arrest but pre-conviction. So you against that? Are you against Trump doing that?
Trump Gives Thumbs-Up To Cops Taking More Stuff Away From People
The president endorsed civil asset forfeiture, which lets police seize even innocent people's property.
Actually, you didn't show that Trump extended asset forfeiture, just that he thought was a good thing, and used properly, it is.Is this an admission you lost the argument? Now comes the deflection to an argument you thunk you can win with Huffpo articles.An anarchist throwing fireworks and mortars at federal agents got hit by nonofficer shot a peaceful protestor in the face?And those that did that should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.Portland protesters are using lasers against police officers, and it is feared that three of those so wounded in less than 15 seconds may never see again. Just shootin' the laser gunners sounds good to me.I forget ... was Bundy burning down The Target?
Trump didn't send federal officers for burning down a Target, he said it was to protect federal property. Try to keep on subject.
I forget----were the bundy people trashing the lands upon which they had descended? Were people dying daily as a result of the BUNDY GANG?
Yes they trashed the building and there was a shoot out. The reason for the occupation was because the cattle ranchers were setting ILLEGAL fires on the federal grazing lands.
You forget Lew...that was Righteous protest.
ok ----I forget-----what were they righteously protesting? Why were cattle ranchers setting
fires on federal grazing lands----that sounds like a
serious crime to me but not as bad as the urban
nitemare ongoing by BLM
She was being sarcastic.
I got the note of sarcasm-----but still do not see how
the two issues can be conflated
How can you not see it? Trump justified sending the federal troops to PROTECT federal buildings and property.
The Bundy group occupied and damaged federal property, yet Trump pardoned them.
Why was it ok for the Bundy group to occupy and damage federal land and buildings, but he needs to send federal officers to arrest others for doing it in Portland? It's quite simple. Either you say both are just exercising their 1st Amendment rights to protest, OR both are guilty of damaging federal property. The only difference is who the 2 groups are.
Should the officer that shot a peaceful protestor in the face, fracturing his skull be prosecuted?I don't support corrupt democrats seizing private property to enrich democrats.There was no destruction. Trash was left behind. Someone posted pictures. Nothing was destroyed. A corrupt democrat administration, Biden was vice president, tried to seize this family's ranch to enrich the Democrat speaker's son. The federal government under shitstain obama was completely corrupt. They seized the Bundy's cattle. The conduct was so egregious that not a single auction, slaughterhouse or storage facility would take a single head of stolen cattle. Cowboys went and got all those cattle back. The Bundy family had a legitimate grievance. Protesting the civil war is NOT a legitimate grievance.In the Bundy case, that federal property wasnt in jeapordy of being destroyed.I forget ... was Bundy burning down The Target?
Trump didn't send federal officers for burning down a Target, he said it was to protect federal property. Try to keep on subject.
Oh? They caused destruction. Splitting hairs here.
Wrong. The federal government REVOKED their rights to graze on federal land because Bundy quit paying the taxes for doing so and Bundy continued to do it anyway. So they confiscated cattle that were illegally on federal land.
You've made your stance quite obvious that you only care about laws being enforced as long as it is by someone that you don't support. View attachment 367292
Then you don't follow the laws very much. Under Trump the federal government has EXTENDED the laws that allow seizure of private property of citizens after an arrest but pre-conviction. So you against that? Are you against Trump doing that?
Trump Gives Thumbs-Up To Cops Taking More Stuff Away From People
The president endorsed civil asset forfeiture, which lets police seize even innocent people's property.
Communists always make me feel like I need to use hand sanitizer and brush my teeth.
Lost what argument? You said, "I don't support corrupt democrats seizing private property to enrich democrats."
I showed you where TRUMP extended the civil asset forfeiture laws. You can do a search and look for any source you want if you don't like mine. It doesn't change that. So are you against what Trump did?
He had the DOJ EXTEND it into states that had stopped doing it. You need to educate yourself and pay more attention to what he does, not just his Twitter.View attachment 367299View attachment 367300View attachment 367301
Wrong. It extends it into states that had stopped the practice. It is making states comply to the rule through federal mandate.
- Dec 29, 2008
- 19,821
- 4,828
- 280
I know you were trying to squeeze out a real idea there, but it was only the same old bullshit you always squeeze out.Trump conflates law and order with authoritarianism.You are confused. Nowhere in the letter does it extend asset forfeiture into states that don't already have it, which I imagine are few if any. It discusses only how the state and federal governments will deal with such assets if they are seized by the state.There is nothing in your link about Trump extending asset forfeiture.An anarchist throwing fireworks and mortars at federal agents got hit by nonofficer shot a peaceful protestor in the face?And those that did that should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.Portland protesters are using lasers against police officers, and it is feared that three of those so wounded in less than 15 seconds may never see again. Just shootin' the laser gunners sounds good to me.I forget ... was Bundy burning down The Target?
Trump didn't send federal officers for burning down a Target, he said it was to protect federal property. Try to keep on subject.
I forget----were the bundy people trashing the lands upon which they had descended? Were people dying daily as a result of the BUNDY GANG?
Yes they trashed the building and there was a shoot out. The reason for the occupation was because the cattle ranchers were setting ILLEGAL fires on the federal grazing lands.
You forget Lew...that was Righteous protest.
ok ----I forget-----what were they righteously protesting? Why were cattle ranchers setting
fires on federal grazing lands----that sounds like a
serious crime to me but not as bad as the urban
nitemare ongoing by BLM
She was being sarcastic.
I got the note of sarcasm-----but still do not see how
the two issues can be conflated
How can you not see it? Trump justified sending the federal troops to PROTECT federal buildings and property.
The Bundy group occupied and damaged federal property, yet Trump pardoned them.
Why was it ok for the Bundy group to occupy and damage federal land and buildings, but he needs to send federal officers to arrest others for doing it in Portland? It's quite simple. Either you say both are just exercising their 1st Amendment rights to protest, OR both are guilty of damaging federal property. The only difference is who the 2 groups are.
Should the officer that shot a peaceful protestor in the face, fracturing his skull be prosecuted?I don't support corrupt democrats seizing private property to enrich democrats.There was no destruction. Trash was left behind. Someone posted pictures. Nothing was destroyed. A corrupt democrat administration, Biden was vice president, tried to seize this family's ranch to enrich the Democrat speaker's son. The federal government under shitstain obama was completely corrupt. They seized the Bundy's cattle. The conduct was so egregious that not a single auction, slaughterhouse or storage facility would take a single head of stolen cattle. Cowboys went and got all those cattle back. The Bundy family had a legitimate grievance. Protesting the civil war is NOT a legitimate grievance.In the Bundy case, that federal property wasnt in jeapordy of being destroyed.I forget ... was Bundy burning down The Target?
Trump didn't send federal officers for burning down a Target, he said it was to protect federal property. Try to keep on subject.
Oh? They caused destruction. Splitting hairs here.
Wrong. The federal government REVOKED their rights to graze on federal land because Bundy quit paying the taxes for doing so and Bundy continued to do it anyway. So they confiscated cattle that were illegally on federal land.
You've made your stance quite obvious that you only care about laws being enforced as long as it is by someone that you don't support. View attachment 367292
Then you don't follow the laws very much. Under Trump the federal government has EXTENDED the laws that allow seizure of private property of citizens after an arrest but pre-conviction. So you against that? Are you against Trump doing that?
Trump Gives Thumbs-Up To Cops Taking More Stuff Away From People
The president endorsed civil asset forfeiture, which lets police seize even innocent people's property.
Actually, you didn't show that Trump extended asset forfeiture, just that he thought was a good thing, and used properly, it is.Is this an admission you lost the argument? Now comes the deflection to an argument you thunk you can win with Huffpo articles.An anarchist throwing fireworks and mortars at federal agents got hit by nonofficer shot a peaceful protestor in the face?And those that did that should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.Portland protesters are using lasers against police officers, and it is feared that three of those so wounded in less than 15 seconds may never see again. Just shootin' the laser gunners sounds good to me.I forget ... was Bundy burning down The Target?
Trump didn't send federal officers for burning down a Target, he said it was to protect federal property. Try to keep on subject.
I forget----were the bundy people trashing the lands upon which they had descended? Were people dying daily as a result of the BUNDY GANG?
Yes they trashed the building and there was a shoot out. The reason for the occupation was because the cattle ranchers were setting ILLEGAL fires on the federal grazing lands.
You forget Lew...that was Righteous protest.
ok ----I forget-----what were they righteously protesting? Why were cattle ranchers setting
fires on federal grazing lands----that sounds like a
serious crime to me but not as bad as the urban
nitemare ongoing by BLM
She was being sarcastic.
I got the note of sarcasm-----but still do not see how
the two issues can be conflated
How can you not see it? Trump justified sending the federal troops to PROTECT federal buildings and property.
The Bundy group occupied and damaged federal property, yet Trump pardoned them.
Why was it ok for the Bundy group to occupy and damage federal land and buildings, but he needs to send federal officers to arrest others for doing it in Portland? It's quite simple. Either you say both are just exercising their 1st Amendment rights to protest, OR both are guilty of damaging federal property. The only difference is who the 2 groups are.
Should the officer that shot a peaceful protestor in the face, fracturing his skull be prosecuted?I don't support corrupt democrats seizing private property to enrich democrats.There was no destruction. Trash was left behind. Someone posted pictures. Nothing was destroyed. A corrupt democrat administration, Biden was vice president, tried to seize this family's ranch to enrich the Democrat speaker's son. The federal government under shitstain obama was completely corrupt. They seized the Bundy's cattle. The conduct was so egregious that not a single auction, slaughterhouse or storage facility would take a single head of stolen cattle. Cowboys went and got all those cattle back. The Bundy family had a legitimate grievance. Protesting the civil war is NOT a legitimate grievance.In the Bundy case, that federal property wasnt in jeapordy of being destroyed.I forget ... was Bundy burning down The Target?
Trump didn't send federal officers for burning down a Target, he said it was to protect federal property. Try to keep on subject.
Oh? They caused destruction. Splitting hairs here.
Wrong. The federal government REVOKED their rights to graze on federal land because Bundy quit paying the taxes for doing so and Bundy continued to do it anyway. So they confiscated cattle that were illegally on federal land.
You've made your stance quite obvious that you only care about laws being enforced as long as it is by someone that you don't support. View attachment 367292
Then you don't follow the laws very much. Under Trump the federal government has EXTENDED the laws that allow seizure of private property of citizens after an arrest but pre-conviction. So you against that? Are you against Trump doing that?
Trump Gives Thumbs-Up To Cops Taking More Stuff Away From People
The president endorsed civil asset forfeiture, which lets police seize even innocent people's property.
Communists always make me feel like I need to use hand sanitizer and brush my teeth.
Lost what argument? You said, "I don't support corrupt democrats seizing private property to enrich democrats."
I showed you where TRUMP extended the civil asset forfeiture laws. You can do a search and look for any source you want if you don't like mine. It doesn't change that. So are you against what Trump did?
He had the DOJ EXTEND it into states that had stopped doing it. You need to educate yourself and pay more attention to what he does, not just his Twitter.View attachment 367299View attachment 367300View attachment 367301
Wrong. It extends it into states that had stopped the practice. It is making states comply to the rule through federal mandate.
EvilCat Breath
Diamond Member
- Sep 23, 2016
- 77,400
- 53,457
- 2,645
Like Trump the Bundys fought corrupt democrats. That's what is the common fact. Both fight corrupt democrats.The Bundy group was fighting to retain grazing rights to vacant land they have been grazing cattle on for years. They were not fighting for the right to burn down federal buildings and never tore down a monument.
The Bundy's were in arrears in paying for those grazing "Rights". In 8 years, the used the Federal Land to graze the cattle. The charge that is levied is 1.25 bucks a head for the year. That doesn't bankrupt other Ranchers. Then, top it off, they decide to militarily take over a Federal Land and occupy the place. Your Heroes are Criminals who, like Rump, doesn't believe the laws should apply to them.
Dale Smith
Platinum Member
Shocked and appalled by Trump even though he hasn't approached even close to that of the Barrypuppet. Imagine that? Anyone have some tissue for Coyote? She is misy-eyed and gettin a little emotional.Trump conflates law and order with authoritarianism.You are confused. Nowhere in the letter does it extend asset forfeiture into states that don't already have it, which I imagine are few if any. It discusses only how the state and federal governments will deal with such assets if they are seized by the state.There is nothing in your link about Trump extending asset forfeiture.An anarchist throwing fireworks and mortars at federal agents got hit by nonofficer shot a peaceful protestor in the face?And those that did that should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.Portland protesters are using lasers against police officers, and it is feared that three of those so wounded in less than 15 seconds may never see again. Just shootin' the laser gunners sounds good to me.I forget ... was Bundy burning down The Target?
Trump didn't send federal officers for burning down a Target, he said it was to protect federal property. Try to keep on subject.
I forget----were the bundy people trashing the lands upon which they had descended? Were people dying daily as a result of the BUNDY GANG?
Yes they trashed the building and there was a shoot out. The reason for the occupation was because the cattle ranchers were setting ILLEGAL fires on the federal grazing lands.
You forget Lew...that was Righteous protest.
ok ----I forget-----what were they righteously protesting? Why were cattle ranchers setting
fires on federal grazing lands----that sounds like a
serious crime to me but not as bad as the urban
nitemare ongoing by BLM
She was being sarcastic.
I got the note of sarcasm-----but still do not see how
the two issues can be conflated
How can you not see it? Trump justified sending the federal troops to PROTECT federal buildings and property.
The Bundy group occupied and damaged federal property, yet Trump pardoned them.
Why was it ok for the Bundy group to occupy and damage federal land and buildings, but he needs to send federal officers to arrest others for doing it in Portland? It's quite simple. Either you say both are just exercising their 1st Amendment rights to protest, OR both are guilty of damaging federal property. The only difference is who the 2 groups are.
Should the officer that shot a peaceful protestor in the face, fracturing his skull be prosecuted?I don't support corrupt democrats seizing private property to enrich democrats.There was no destruction. Trash was left behind. Someone posted pictures. Nothing was destroyed. A corrupt democrat administration, Biden was vice president, tried to seize this family's ranch to enrich the Democrat speaker's son. The federal government under shitstain obama was completely corrupt. They seized the Bundy's cattle. The conduct was so egregious that not a single auction, slaughterhouse or storage facility would take a single head of stolen cattle. Cowboys went and got all those cattle back. The Bundy family had a legitimate grievance. Protesting the civil war is NOT a legitimate grievance.In the Bundy case, that federal property wasnt in jeapordy of being destroyed.I forget ... was Bundy burning down The Target?
Trump didn't send federal officers for burning down a Target, he said it was to protect federal property. Try to keep on subject.
Oh? They caused destruction. Splitting hairs here.
Wrong. The federal government REVOKED their rights to graze on federal land because Bundy quit paying the taxes for doing so and Bundy continued to do it anyway. So they confiscated cattle that were illegally on federal land.
You've made your stance quite obvious that you only care about laws being enforced as long as it is by someone that you don't support. View attachment 367292
Then you don't follow the laws very much. Under Trump the federal government has EXTENDED the laws that allow seizure of private property of citizens after an arrest but pre-conviction. So you against that? Are you against Trump doing that?
Trump Gives Thumbs-Up To Cops Taking More Stuff Away From People
The president endorsed civil asset forfeiture, which lets police seize even innocent people's property.
Actually, you didn't show that Trump extended asset forfeiture, just that he thought was a good thing, and used properly, it is.Is this an admission you lost the argument? Now comes the deflection to an argument you thunk you can win with Huffpo articles.An anarchist throwing fireworks and mortars at federal agents got hit by nonofficer shot a peaceful protestor in the face?And those that did that should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.Portland protesters are using lasers against police officers, and it is feared that three of those so wounded in less than 15 seconds may never see again. Just shootin' the laser gunners sounds good to me.I forget ... was Bundy burning down The Target?
Trump didn't send federal officers for burning down a Target, he said it was to protect federal property. Try to keep on subject.
I forget----were the bundy people trashing the lands upon which they had descended? Were people dying daily as a result of the BUNDY GANG?
Yes they trashed the building and there was a shoot out. The reason for the occupation was because the cattle ranchers were setting ILLEGAL fires on the federal grazing lands.
You forget Lew...that was Righteous protest.
ok ----I forget-----what were they righteously protesting? Why were cattle ranchers setting
fires on federal grazing lands----that sounds like a
serious crime to me but not as bad as the urban
nitemare ongoing by BLM
She was being sarcastic.
I got the note of sarcasm-----but still do not see how
the two issues can be conflated
How can you not see it? Trump justified sending the federal troops to PROTECT federal buildings and property.
The Bundy group occupied and damaged federal property, yet Trump pardoned them.
Why was it ok for the Bundy group to occupy and damage federal land and buildings, but he needs to send federal officers to arrest others for doing it in Portland? It's quite simple. Either you say both are just exercising their 1st Amendment rights to protest, OR both are guilty of damaging federal property. The only difference is who the 2 groups are.
Should the officer that shot a peaceful protestor in the face, fracturing his skull be prosecuted?I don't support corrupt democrats seizing private property to enrich democrats.There was no destruction. Trash was left behind. Someone posted pictures. Nothing was destroyed. A corrupt democrat administration, Biden was vice president, tried to seize this family's ranch to enrich the Democrat speaker's son. The federal government under shitstain obama was completely corrupt. They seized the Bundy's cattle. The conduct was so egregious that not a single auction, slaughterhouse or storage facility would take a single head of stolen cattle. Cowboys went and got all those cattle back. The Bundy family had a legitimate grievance. Protesting the civil war is NOT a legitimate grievance.In the Bundy case, that federal property wasnt in jeapordy of being destroyed.I forget ... was Bundy burning down The Target?
Trump didn't send federal officers for burning down a Target, he said it was to protect federal property. Try to keep on subject.
Oh? They caused destruction. Splitting hairs here.
Wrong. The federal government REVOKED their rights to graze on federal land because Bundy quit paying the taxes for doing so and Bundy continued to do it anyway. So they confiscated cattle that were illegally on federal land.
You've made your stance quite obvious that you only care about laws being enforced as long as it is by someone that you don't support. View attachment 367292
Then you don't follow the laws very much. Under Trump the federal government has EXTENDED the laws that allow seizure of private property of citizens after an arrest but pre-conviction. So you against that? Are you against Trump doing that?
Trump Gives Thumbs-Up To Cops Taking More Stuff Away From People
The president endorsed civil asset forfeiture, which lets police seize even innocent people's property.
Communists always make me feel like I need to use hand sanitizer and brush my teeth.
Lost what argument? You said, "I don't support corrupt democrats seizing private property to enrich democrats."
I showed you where TRUMP extended the civil asset forfeiture laws. You can do a search and look for any source you want if you don't like mine. It doesn't change that. So are you against what Trump did?
He had the DOJ EXTEND it into states that had stopped doing it. You need to educate yourself and pay more attention to what he does, not just his Twitter.View attachment 367299View attachment 367300View attachment 367301
Wrong. It extends it into states that had stopped the practice. It is making states comply to the rule through federal mandate.
- Moderator
- #132
We are. Attempting to use the Military against citizens so he could have a photo op?Then why arent we seeing authoritarianism?Trump conflates law and order with authoritarianism.You are confused. Nowhere in the letter does it extend asset forfeiture into states that don't already have it, which I imagine are few if any. It discusses only how the state and federal governments will deal with such assets if they are seized by the state.There is nothing in your link about Trump extending asset forfeiture.An anarchist throwing fireworks and mortars at federal agents got hit by nonofficer shot a peaceful protestor in the face?And those that did that should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.Portland protesters are using lasers against police officers, and it is feared that three of those so wounded in less than 15 seconds may never see again. Just shootin' the laser gunners sounds good to me.I forget ... was Bundy burning down The Target?
Trump didn't send federal officers for burning down a Target, he said it was to protect federal property. Try to keep on subject.
I forget----were the bundy people trashing the lands upon which they had descended? Were people dying daily as a result of the BUNDY GANG?
Yes they trashed the building and there was a shoot out. The reason for the occupation was because the cattle ranchers were setting ILLEGAL fires on the federal grazing lands.
You forget Lew...that was Righteous protest.
ok ----I forget-----what were they righteously protesting? Why were cattle ranchers setting
fires on federal grazing lands----that sounds like a
serious crime to me but not as bad as the urban
nitemare ongoing by BLM
She was being sarcastic.
I got the note of sarcasm-----but still do not see how
the two issues can be conflated
How can you not see it? Trump justified sending the federal troops to PROTECT federal buildings and property.
The Bundy group occupied and damaged federal property, yet Trump pardoned them.
Why was it ok for the Bundy group to occupy and damage federal land and buildings, but he needs to send federal officers to arrest others for doing it in Portland? It's quite simple. Either you say both are just exercising their 1st Amendment rights to protest, OR both are guilty of damaging federal property. The only difference is who the 2 groups are.
Should the officer that shot a peaceful protestor in the face, fracturing his skull be prosecuted?I don't support corrupt democrats seizing private property to enrich democrats.There was no destruction. Trash was left behind. Someone posted pictures. Nothing was destroyed. A corrupt democrat administration, Biden was vice president, tried to seize this family's ranch to enrich the Democrat speaker's son. The federal government under shitstain obama was completely corrupt. They seized the Bundy's cattle. The conduct was so egregious that not a single auction, slaughterhouse or storage facility would take a single head of stolen cattle. Cowboys went and got all those cattle back. The Bundy family had a legitimate grievance. Protesting the civil war is NOT a legitimate grievance.In the Bundy case, that federal property wasnt in jeapordy of being destroyed.I forget ... was Bundy burning down The Target?
Trump didn't send federal officers for burning down a Target, he said it was to protect federal property. Try to keep on subject.
Oh? They caused destruction. Splitting hairs here.
Wrong. The federal government REVOKED their rights to graze on federal land because Bundy quit paying the taxes for doing so and Bundy continued to do it anyway. So they confiscated cattle that were illegally on federal land.
You've made your stance quite obvious that you only care about laws being enforced as long as it is by someone that you don't support. View attachment 367292
Then you don't follow the laws very much. Under Trump the federal government has EXTENDED the laws that allow seizure of private property of citizens after an arrest but pre-conviction. So you against that? Are you against Trump doing that?
Trump Gives Thumbs-Up To Cops Taking More Stuff Away From People
The president endorsed civil asset forfeiture, which lets police seize even innocent people's property.
Actually, you didn't show that Trump extended asset forfeiture, just that he thought was a good thing, and used properly, it is.Is this an admission you lost the argument? Now comes the deflection to an argument you thunk you can win with Huffpo articles.An anarchist throwing fireworks and mortars at federal agents got hit by nonofficer shot a peaceful protestor in the face?And those that did that should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.Portland protesters are using lasers against police officers, and it is feared that three of those so wounded in less than 15 seconds may never see again. Just shootin' the laser gunners sounds good to me.I forget ... was Bundy burning down The Target?
Trump didn't send federal officers for burning down a Target, he said it was to protect federal property. Try to keep on subject.
I forget----were the bundy people trashing the lands upon which they had descended? Were people dying daily as a result of the BUNDY GANG?
Yes they trashed the building and there was a shoot out. The reason for the occupation was because the cattle ranchers were setting ILLEGAL fires on the federal grazing lands.
You forget Lew...that was Righteous protest.
ok ----I forget-----what were they righteously protesting? Why were cattle ranchers setting
fires on federal grazing lands----that sounds like a
serious crime to me but not as bad as the urban
nitemare ongoing by BLM
She was being sarcastic.
I got the note of sarcasm-----but still do not see how
the two issues can be conflated
How can you not see it? Trump justified sending the federal troops to PROTECT federal buildings and property.
The Bundy group occupied and damaged federal property, yet Trump pardoned them.
Why was it ok for the Bundy group to occupy and damage federal land and buildings, but he needs to send federal officers to arrest others for doing it in Portland? It's quite simple. Either you say both are just exercising their 1st Amendment rights to protest, OR both are guilty of damaging federal property. The only difference is who the 2 groups are.
Should the officer that shot a peaceful protestor in the face, fracturing his skull be prosecuted?I don't support corrupt democrats seizing private property to enrich democrats.There was no destruction. Trash was left behind. Someone posted pictures. Nothing was destroyed. A corrupt democrat administration, Biden was vice president, tried to seize this family's ranch to enrich the Democrat speaker's son. The federal government under shitstain obama was completely corrupt. They seized the Bundy's cattle. The conduct was so egregious that not a single auction, slaughterhouse or storage facility would take a single head of stolen cattle. Cowboys went and got all those cattle back. The Bundy family had a legitimate grievance. Protesting the civil war is NOT a legitimate grievance.In the Bundy case, that federal property wasnt in jeapordy of being destroyed.I forget ... was Bundy burning down The Target?
Trump didn't send federal officers for burning down a Target, he said it was to protect federal property. Try to keep on subject.
Oh? They caused destruction. Splitting hairs here.
Wrong. The federal government REVOKED their rights to graze on federal land because Bundy quit paying the taxes for doing so and Bundy continued to do it anyway. So they confiscated cattle that were illegally on federal land.
You've made your stance quite obvious that you only care about laws being enforced as long as it is by someone that you don't support. View attachment 367292
Then you don't follow the laws very much. Under Trump the federal government has EXTENDED the laws that allow seizure of private property of citizens after an arrest but pre-conviction. So you against that? Are you against Trump doing that?
Trump Gives Thumbs-Up To Cops Taking More Stuff Away From People
The president endorsed civil asset forfeiture, which lets police seize even innocent people's property.
Communists always make me feel like I need to use hand sanitizer and brush my teeth.
Lost what argument? You said, "I don't support corrupt democrats seizing private property to enrich democrats."
I showed you where TRUMP extended the civil asset forfeiture laws. You can do a search and look for any source you want if you don't like mine. It doesn't change that. So are you against what Trump did?
He had the DOJ EXTEND it into states that had stopped doing it. You need to educate yourself and pay more attention to what he does, not just his Twitter.View attachment 367299View attachment 367300View attachment 367301
Wrong. It extends it into states that had stopped the practice. It is making states comply to the rule through federal mandate.
Even the military dug in their heels at that.
Dale Smith
Platinum Member
I forget ... was Bundy burning down The Target?
Trump didn't send federal officers for burning down a Target, he said it was to protect federal property. Try to keep on subject.
I forget----were the bundy people trashing the lands upon which they had descended? Were people dying daily as a result of the BUNDY GANG?
Yes they trashed the building and there was a shoot out. The reason for the occupation was because the cattle ranchers were setting ILLEGAL fires on the federal grazing lands.
Dude, you are not anywhere even close to the vicinity of the truth about either incident.
Why was it ok for Trump to pardon the Bundy group members who took over a federal building, but suddenly it is ok to have unmarked federal officers to arrest protesters Trump says are destroying federal property? The Bundy group members did the EXACT same thing and he supported them. It's ALL political.
"In 2016, as a result of their sentencing, Ammon Bundy gathered supporters and took over the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in southeastern Oregon. Federal authorities were faced with a 41-day armed standoff which resulted in one fatality. Bundy, who along with others, was acquitted of any charges, saidhe believed the pair of ranchers were victims of federal overreach."
Trump pardons Oregon cattle ranchers at the center of Bundy standoff
White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders took a jab at the Obama administration for issuing an “overzealous appeal.”abcnews.go.com
The only difference is the Bundy's were occupying a federal building, seemed to do minimal damage, and didn't make life miserable for thousands of people to include murder.
But, other than that small difference your analogy is spot on
Lewdog
Gold Member
- Thread starter
- #135
That is simply not true. It only addresses the issue of seized assets where both federal and state laws were violated. The federal government cannot mandate state law or order states to enforce federal laws. If the state hasn't already seized assets, this letter has no relevance.You are confused. Nowhere in the letter does it extend asset forfeiture into states that don't already have it, which I imagine are few if any. It discusses only how the state and federal governments will deal with such assets if they are seized by the state.There is nothing in your link about Trump extending asset forfeiture.An anarchist throwing fireworks and mortars at federal agents got hit by nonofficer shot a peaceful protestor in the face?And those that did that should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.Portland protesters are using lasers against police officers, and it is feared that three of those so wounded in less than 15 seconds may never see again. Just shootin' the laser gunners sounds good to me.I forget ... was Bundy burning down The Target?
Trump didn't send federal officers for burning down a Target, he said it was to protect federal property. Try to keep on subject.
I forget----were the bundy people trashing the lands upon which they had descended? Were people dying daily as a result of the BUNDY GANG?
Yes they trashed the building and there was a shoot out. The reason for the occupation was because the cattle ranchers were setting ILLEGAL fires on the federal grazing lands.
You forget Lew...that was Righteous protest.
ok ----I forget-----what were they righteously protesting? Why were cattle ranchers setting
fires on federal grazing lands----that sounds like a
serious crime to me but not as bad as the urban
nitemare ongoing by BLM
She was being sarcastic.
I got the note of sarcasm-----but still do not see how
the two issues can be conflated
How can you not see it? Trump justified sending the federal troops to PROTECT federal buildings and property.
The Bundy group occupied and damaged federal property, yet Trump pardoned them.
Why was it ok for the Bundy group to occupy and damage federal land and buildings, but he needs to send federal officers to arrest others for doing it in Portland? It's quite simple. Either you say both are just exercising their 1st Amendment rights to protest, OR both are guilty of damaging federal property. The only difference is who the 2 groups are.
Should the officer that shot a peaceful protestor in the face, fracturing his skull be prosecuted?I don't support corrupt democrats seizing private property to enrich democrats.There was no destruction. Trash was left behind. Someone posted pictures. Nothing was destroyed. A corrupt democrat administration, Biden was vice president, tried to seize this family's ranch to enrich the Democrat speaker's son. The federal government under shitstain obama was completely corrupt. They seized the Bundy's cattle. The conduct was so egregious that not a single auction, slaughterhouse or storage facility would take a single head of stolen cattle. Cowboys went and got all those cattle back. The Bundy family had a legitimate grievance. Protesting the civil war is NOT a legitimate grievance.In the Bundy case, that federal property wasnt in jeapordy of being destroyed.I forget ... was Bundy burning down The Target?
Trump didn't send federal officers for burning down a Target, he said it was to protect federal property. Try to keep on subject.
Oh? They caused destruction. Splitting hairs here.
Wrong. The federal government REVOKED their rights to graze on federal land because Bundy quit paying the taxes for doing so and Bundy continued to do it anyway. So they confiscated cattle that were illegally on federal land.
You've made your stance quite obvious that you only care about laws being enforced as long as it is by someone that you don't support. View attachment 367292
Then you don't follow the laws very much. Under Trump the federal government has EXTENDED the laws that allow seizure of private property of citizens after an arrest but pre-conviction. So you against that? Are you against Trump doing that?
Trump Gives Thumbs-Up To Cops Taking More Stuff Away From People
The president endorsed civil asset forfeiture, which lets police seize even innocent people's property.
Actually, you didn't show that Trump extended asset forfeiture, just that he thought was a good thing, and used properly, it is.Is this an admission you lost the argument? Now comes the deflection to an argument you thunk you can win with Huffpo articles.An anarchist throwing fireworks and mortars at federal agents got hit by nonofficer shot a peaceful protestor in the face?And those that did that should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.Portland protesters are using lasers against police officers, and it is feared that three of those so wounded in less than 15 seconds may never see again. Just shootin' the laser gunners sounds good to me.I forget ... was Bundy burning down The Target?
Trump didn't send federal officers for burning down a Target, he said it was to protect federal property. Try to keep on subject.
I forget----were the bundy people trashing the lands upon which they had descended? Were people dying daily as a result of the BUNDY GANG?
Yes they trashed the building and there was a shoot out. The reason for the occupation was because the cattle ranchers were setting ILLEGAL fires on the federal grazing lands.
You forget Lew...that was Righteous protest.
ok ----I forget-----what were they righteously protesting? Why were cattle ranchers setting
fires on federal grazing lands----that sounds like a
serious crime to me but not as bad as the urban
nitemare ongoing by BLM
She was being sarcastic.
I got the note of sarcasm-----but still do not see how
the two issues can be conflated
How can you not see it? Trump justified sending the federal troops to PROTECT federal buildings and property.
The Bundy group occupied and damaged federal property, yet Trump pardoned them.
Why was it ok for the Bundy group to occupy and damage federal land and buildings, but he needs to send federal officers to arrest others for doing it in Portland? It's quite simple. Either you say both are just exercising their 1st Amendment rights to protest, OR both are guilty of damaging federal property. The only difference is who the 2 groups are.
Should the officer that shot a peaceful protestor in the face, fracturing his skull be prosecuted?I don't support corrupt democrats seizing private property to enrich democrats.There was no destruction. Trash was left behind. Someone posted pictures. Nothing was destroyed. A corrupt democrat administration, Biden was vice president, tried to seize this family's ranch to enrich the Democrat speaker's son. The federal government under shitstain obama was completely corrupt. They seized the Bundy's cattle. The conduct was so egregious that not a single auction, slaughterhouse or storage facility would take a single head of stolen cattle. Cowboys went and got all those cattle back. The Bundy family had a legitimate grievance. Protesting the civil war is NOT a legitimate grievance.In the Bundy case, that federal property wasnt in jeapordy of being destroyed.I forget ... was Bundy burning down The Target?
Trump didn't send federal officers for burning down a Target, he said it was to protect federal property. Try to keep on subject.
Oh? They caused destruction. Splitting hairs here.
Wrong. The federal government REVOKED their rights to graze on federal land because Bundy quit paying the taxes for doing so and Bundy continued to do it anyway. So they confiscated cattle that were illegally on federal land.
You've made your stance quite obvious that you only care about laws being enforced as long as it is by someone that you don't support. View attachment 367292
Then you don't follow the laws very much. Under Trump the federal government has EXTENDED the laws that allow seizure of private property of citizens after an arrest but pre-conviction. So you against that? Are you against Trump doing that?
Trump Gives Thumbs-Up To Cops Taking More Stuff Away From People
The president endorsed civil asset forfeiture, which lets police seize even innocent people's property.
Communists always make me feel like I need to use hand sanitizer and brush my teeth.
Lost what argument? You said, "I don't support corrupt democrats seizing private property to enrich democrats."
I showed you where TRUMP extended the civil asset forfeiture laws. You can do a search and look for any source you want if you don't like mine. It doesn't change that. So are you against what Trump did?
He had the DOJ EXTEND it into states that had stopped doing it. You need to educate yourself and pay more attention to what he does, not just his Twitter.View attachment 367299View attachment 367300View attachment 367301
Wrong. It extends it into states that had stopped the practice. It is making states comply to the rule through federal mandate.
I'm sorry but you are totally wrong here. This is no different than when Trump told Sessions to enforce drug laws into states that had made marijuana legal. It's called the Supremacy Clause.
It is ironic however because Trump ran on the platform of shrinking federal government and giving more power back to the states. Of course he is only doing that for laws he likes.
- Dec 29, 2008
- 19,821
- 4,828
- 280
lol There is no military being used. The federal officers are all law enforcement officers.We are. Attempting to use the Military against citizens so he could have a photo op?Then why arent we seeing authoritarianism?Trump conflates law and order with authoritarianism.You are confused. Nowhere in the letter does it extend asset forfeiture into states that don't already have it, which I imagine are few if any. It discusses only how the state and federal governments will deal with such assets if they are seized by the state.There is nothing in your link about Trump extending asset forfeiture.An anarchist throwing fireworks and mortars at federal agents got hit by nonofficer shot a peaceful protestor in the face?And those that did that should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.Portland protesters are using lasers against police officers, and it is feared that three of those so wounded in less than 15 seconds may never see again. Just shootin' the laser gunners sounds good to me.I forget ... was Bundy burning down The Target?
Trump didn't send federal officers for burning down a Target, he said it was to protect federal property. Try to keep on subject.
I forget----were the bundy people trashing the lands upon which they had descended? Were people dying daily as a result of the BUNDY GANG?
Yes they trashed the building and there was a shoot out. The reason for the occupation was because the cattle ranchers were setting ILLEGAL fires on the federal grazing lands.
You forget Lew...that was Righteous protest.
ok ----I forget-----what were they righteously protesting? Why were cattle ranchers setting
fires on federal grazing lands----that sounds like a
serious crime to me but not as bad as the urban
nitemare ongoing by BLM
She was being sarcastic.
I got the note of sarcasm-----but still do not see how
the two issues can be conflated
How can you not see it? Trump justified sending the federal troops to PROTECT federal buildings and property.
The Bundy group occupied and damaged federal property, yet Trump pardoned them.
Why was it ok for the Bundy group to occupy and damage federal land and buildings, but he needs to send federal officers to arrest others for doing it in Portland? It's quite simple. Either you say both are just exercising their 1st Amendment rights to protest, OR both are guilty of damaging federal property. The only difference is who the 2 groups are.
Should the officer that shot a peaceful protestor in the face, fracturing his skull be prosecuted?I don't support corrupt democrats seizing private property to enrich democrats.There was no destruction. Trash was left behind. Someone posted pictures. Nothing was destroyed. A corrupt democrat administration, Biden was vice president, tried to seize this family's ranch to enrich the Democrat speaker's son. The federal government under shitstain obama was completely corrupt. They seized the Bundy's cattle. The conduct was so egregious that not a single auction, slaughterhouse or storage facility would take a single head of stolen cattle. Cowboys went and got all those cattle back. The Bundy family had a legitimate grievance. Protesting the civil war is NOT a legitimate grievance.In the Bundy case, that federal property wasnt in jeapordy of being destroyed.I forget ... was Bundy burning down The Target?
Trump didn't send federal officers for burning down a Target, he said it was to protect federal property. Try to keep on subject.
Oh? They caused destruction. Splitting hairs here.
Wrong. The federal government REVOKED their rights to graze on federal land because Bundy quit paying the taxes for doing so and Bundy continued to do it anyway. So they confiscated cattle that were illegally on federal land.
You've made your stance quite obvious that you only care about laws being enforced as long as it is by someone that you don't support. View attachment 367292
Then you don't follow the laws very much. Under Trump the federal government has EXTENDED the laws that allow seizure of private property of citizens after an arrest but pre-conviction. So you against that? Are you against Trump doing that?
Trump Gives Thumbs-Up To Cops Taking More Stuff Away From People
The president endorsed civil asset forfeiture, which lets police seize even innocent people's property.
Actually, you didn't show that Trump extended asset forfeiture, just that he thought was a good thing, and used properly, it is.Is this an admission you lost the argument? Now comes the deflection to an argument you thunk you can win with Huffpo articles.An anarchist throwing fireworks and mortars at federal agents got hit by nonofficer shot a peaceful protestor in the face?And those that did that should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.Portland protesters are using lasers against police officers, and it is feared that three of those so wounded in less than 15 seconds may never see again. Just shootin' the laser gunners sounds good to me.I forget ... was Bundy burning down The Target?
Trump didn't send federal officers for burning down a Target, he said it was to protect federal property. Try to keep on subject.
I forget----were the bundy people trashing the lands upon which they had descended? Were people dying daily as a result of the BUNDY GANG?
Yes they trashed the building and there was a shoot out. The reason for the occupation was because the cattle ranchers were setting ILLEGAL fires on the federal grazing lands.
You forget Lew...that was Righteous protest.
ok ----I forget-----what were they righteously protesting? Why were cattle ranchers setting
fires on federal grazing lands----that sounds like a
serious crime to me but not as bad as the urban
nitemare ongoing by BLM
She was being sarcastic.
I got the note of sarcasm-----but still do not see how
the two issues can be conflated
How can you not see it? Trump justified sending the federal troops to PROTECT federal buildings and property.
The Bundy group occupied and damaged federal property, yet Trump pardoned them.
Why was it ok for the Bundy group to occupy and damage federal land and buildings, but he needs to send federal officers to arrest others for doing it in Portland? It's quite simple. Either you say both are just exercising their 1st Amendment rights to protest, OR both are guilty of damaging federal property. The only difference is who the 2 groups are.
Should the officer that shot a peaceful protestor in the face, fracturing his skull be prosecuted?I don't support corrupt democrats seizing private property to enrich democrats.There was no destruction. Trash was left behind. Someone posted pictures. Nothing was destroyed. A corrupt democrat administration, Biden was vice president, tried to seize this family's ranch to enrich the Democrat speaker's son. The federal government under shitstain obama was completely corrupt. They seized the Bundy's cattle. The conduct was so egregious that not a single auction, slaughterhouse or storage facility would take a single head of stolen cattle. Cowboys went and got all those cattle back. The Bundy family had a legitimate grievance. Protesting the civil war is NOT a legitimate grievance.In the Bundy case, that federal property wasnt in jeapordy of being destroyed.I forget ... was Bundy burning down The Target?
Trump didn't send federal officers for burning down a Target, he said it was to protect federal property. Try to keep on subject.
Oh? They caused destruction. Splitting hairs here.
Wrong. The federal government REVOKED their rights to graze on federal land because Bundy quit paying the taxes for doing so and Bundy continued to do it anyway. So they confiscated cattle that were illegally on federal land.
You've made your stance quite obvious that you only care about laws being enforced as long as it is by someone that you don't support. View attachment 367292
Then you don't follow the laws very much. Under Trump the federal government has EXTENDED the laws that allow seizure of private property of citizens after an arrest but pre-conviction. So you against that? Are you against Trump doing that?
Trump Gives Thumbs-Up To Cops Taking More Stuff Away From People
The president endorsed civil asset forfeiture, which lets police seize even innocent people's property.
Communists always make me feel like I need to use hand sanitizer and brush my teeth.
Lost what argument? You said, "I don't support corrupt democrats seizing private property to enrich democrats."
I showed you where TRUMP extended the civil asset forfeiture laws. You can do a search and look for any source you want if you don't like mine. It doesn't change that. So are you against what Trump did?
He had the DOJ EXTEND it into states that had stopped doing it. You need to educate yourself and pay more attention to what he does, not just his Twitter.View attachment 367299View attachment 367300View attachment 367301
Wrong. It extends it into states that had stopped the practice. It is making states comply to the rule through federal mandate.
Even the military dug in their heels at that.
EvilCat Breath
Diamond Member
- Sep 23, 2016
- 77,400
- 53,457
- 2,645
Waco
Bundy
Portland Seattle
All damage caused by corrupt democrats.
Bundy
Portland Seattle
All damage caused by corrupt democrats.
Lewdog
Gold Member
- Thread starter
- #138
lol There is no military being used. The federal officers are all law enforcement officers.We are. Attempting to use the Military against citizens so he could have a photo op?Then why arent we seeing authoritarianism?Trump conflates law and order with authoritarianism.You are confused. Nowhere in the letter does it extend asset forfeiture into states that don't already have it, which I imagine are few if any. It discusses only how the state and federal governments will deal with such assets if they are seized by the state.There is nothing in your link about Trump extending asset forfeiture.An anarchist throwing fireworks and mortars at federal agents got hit by nonofficer shot a peaceful protestor in the face?And those that did that should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.Portland protesters are using lasers against police officers, and it is feared that three of those so wounded in less than 15 seconds may never see again. Just shootin' the laser gunners sounds good to me.I forget ... was Bundy burning down The Target?
Trump didn't send federal officers for burning down a Target, he said it was to protect federal property. Try to keep on subject.
I forget----were the bundy people trashing the lands upon which they had descended? Were people dying daily as a result of the BUNDY GANG?
Yes they trashed the building and there was a shoot out. The reason for the occupation was because the cattle ranchers were setting ILLEGAL fires on the federal grazing lands.
You forget Lew...that was Righteous protest.
ok ----I forget-----what were they righteously protesting? Why were cattle ranchers setting
fires on federal grazing lands----that sounds like a
serious crime to me but not as bad as the urban
nitemare ongoing by BLM
She was being sarcastic.
I got the note of sarcasm-----but still do not see how
the two issues can be conflated
How can you not see it? Trump justified sending the federal troops to PROTECT federal buildings and property.
The Bundy group occupied and damaged federal property, yet Trump pardoned them.
Why was it ok for the Bundy group to occupy and damage federal land and buildings, but he needs to send federal officers to arrest others for doing it in Portland? It's quite simple. Either you say both are just exercising their 1st Amendment rights to protest, OR both are guilty of damaging federal property. The only difference is who the 2 groups are.
Should the officer that shot a peaceful protestor in the face, fracturing his skull be prosecuted?I don't support corrupt democrats seizing private property to enrich democrats.There was no destruction. Trash was left behind. Someone posted pictures. Nothing was destroyed. A corrupt democrat administration, Biden was vice president, tried to seize this family's ranch to enrich the Democrat speaker's son. The federal government under shitstain obama was completely corrupt. They seized the Bundy's cattle. The conduct was so egregious that not a single auction, slaughterhouse or storage facility would take a single head of stolen cattle. Cowboys went and got all those cattle back. The Bundy family had a legitimate grievance. Protesting the civil war is NOT a legitimate grievance.In the Bundy case, that federal property wasnt in jeapordy of being destroyed.I forget ... was Bundy burning down The Target?
Trump didn't send federal officers for burning down a Target, he said it was to protect federal property. Try to keep on subject.
Oh? They caused destruction. Splitting hairs here.
Wrong. The federal government REVOKED their rights to graze on federal land because Bundy quit paying the taxes for doing so and Bundy continued to do it anyway. So they confiscated cattle that were illegally on federal land.
You've made your stance quite obvious that you only care about laws being enforced as long as it is by someone that you don't support. View attachment 367292
Then you don't follow the laws very much. Under Trump the federal government has EXTENDED the laws that allow seizure of private property of citizens after an arrest but pre-conviction. So you against that? Are you against Trump doing that?
Trump Gives Thumbs-Up To Cops Taking More Stuff Away From People
The president endorsed civil asset forfeiture, which lets police seize even innocent people's property.
Actually, you didn't show that Trump extended asset forfeiture, just that he thought was a good thing, and used properly, it is.Is this an admission you lost the argument? Now comes the deflection to an argument you thunk you can win with Huffpo articles.An anarchist throwing fireworks and mortars at federal agents got hit by nonofficer shot a peaceful protestor in the face?And those that did that should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.Portland protesters are using lasers against police officers, and it is feared that three of those so wounded in less than 15 seconds may never see again. Just shootin' the laser gunners sounds good to me.I forget ... was Bundy burning down The Target?
Trump didn't send federal officers for burning down a Target, he said it was to protect federal property. Try to keep on subject.
I forget----were the bundy people trashing the lands upon which they had descended? Were people dying daily as a result of the BUNDY GANG?
Yes they trashed the building and there was a shoot out. The reason for the occupation was because the cattle ranchers were setting ILLEGAL fires on the federal grazing lands.
You forget Lew...that was Righteous protest.
ok ----I forget-----what were they righteously protesting? Why were cattle ranchers setting
fires on federal grazing lands----that sounds like a
serious crime to me but not as bad as the urban
nitemare ongoing by BLM
She was being sarcastic.
I got the note of sarcasm-----but still do not see how
the two issues can be conflated
How can you not see it? Trump justified sending the federal troops to PROTECT federal buildings and property.
The Bundy group occupied and damaged federal property, yet Trump pardoned them.
Why was it ok for the Bundy group to occupy and damage federal land and buildings, but he needs to send federal officers to arrest others for doing it in Portland? It's quite simple. Either you say both are just exercising their 1st Amendment rights to protest, OR both are guilty of damaging federal property. The only difference is who the 2 groups are.
Should the officer that shot a peaceful protestor in the face, fracturing his skull be prosecuted?I don't support corrupt democrats seizing private property to enrich democrats.There was no destruction. Trash was left behind. Someone posted pictures. Nothing was destroyed. A corrupt democrat administration, Biden was vice president, tried to seize this family's ranch to enrich the Democrat speaker's son. The federal government under shitstain obama was completely corrupt. They seized the Bundy's cattle. The conduct was so egregious that not a single auction, slaughterhouse or storage facility would take a single head of stolen cattle. Cowboys went and got all those cattle back. The Bundy family had a legitimate grievance. Protesting the civil war is NOT a legitimate grievance.In the Bundy case, that federal property wasnt in jeapordy of being destroyed.I forget ... was Bundy burning down The Target?
Trump didn't send federal officers for burning down a Target, he said it was to protect federal property. Try to keep on subject.
Oh? They caused destruction. Splitting hairs here.
Wrong. The federal government REVOKED their rights to graze on federal land because Bundy quit paying the taxes for doing so and Bundy continued to do it anyway. So they confiscated cattle that were illegally on federal land.
You've made your stance quite obvious that you only care about laws being enforced as long as it is by someone that you don't support. View attachment 367292
Then you don't follow the laws very much. Under Trump the federal government has EXTENDED the laws that allow seizure of private property of citizens after an arrest but pre-conviction. So you against that? Are you against Trump doing that?
Trump Gives Thumbs-Up To Cops Taking More Stuff Away From People
The president endorsed civil asset forfeiture, which lets police seize even innocent people's property.
Communists always make me feel like I need to use hand sanitizer and brush my teeth.
Lost what argument? You said, "I don't support corrupt democrats seizing private property to enrich democrats."
I showed you where TRUMP extended the civil asset forfeiture laws. You can do a search and look for any source you want if you don't like mine. It doesn't change that. So are you against what Trump did?
He had the DOJ EXTEND it into states that had stopped doing it. You need to educate yourself and pay more attention to what he does, not just his Twitter.View attachment 367299View attachment 367300View attachment 367301
Wrong. It extends it into states that had stopped the practice. It is making states comply to the rule through federal mandate.
Even the military dug in their heels at that.
Law enforcement officers dressed as military. Even Esper has complained about them being dressed that way.
fncceo
Diamond Member
- Nov 29, 2016
- 42,820
- 35,444
- 3,615
Law enforcement officers dressed as military. Even Esper has complained about them being dressed that way.
Lot's of SWAT Teams dress in the tactical manner of the military ... because tactical dress is more practical in that situation.
... the huge patches they wear, back and front, that say, POLICE, distinguish police from military.
Lewdog
Gold Member
- Thread starter
- #140
Law enforcement officers dressed as military. Even Esper has complained about them being dressed that way.
Lot's of SWAT Teams dress in the tactical manner of the military ... because tactical dress is more practical in that situation.
... the huge patches they wear, back and front, that say, POLICE, distinguish police from military.
Military News
Military News, Military Videos, Military Photos, Military Loans, More...
Similar threads
- Replies
- 11
- Views
- 216
- Replies
- 29
- Views
- 992
- Replies
- 45
- Views
- 1K
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 78
- Views
- 323
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8145
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 472
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-