General Discussion

nadinbrzezinski

(154,021 posts)

92. And NONE is calling the army for that

Sun Apr 13, 2014, 12:22 AM

Apr 2014

we are not talking of the same scale. I am talking of precisely what the FAR RIGHT WING wants and is working towards, an open rebellion against the government of the United States. I am not shitting you. That is what they have been working towards for a long time.

If they ever achieve it, mark my words, the United States Army will be deployed (again) inside the United States and will be ordered to shoot. Civilians will die, as collateral damage or due to the fact that some of these folks will use them as human shields, or because the army will start to see all as a potential enemy (like any good civil war)

That is why some of us are NOT looking forwards to that. What happened today was not good, at all. It just gave that group wings. Go read the sites, it is not pretty.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

167 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

If the Government were serious about the BLM/Nevada situation [View all] n2doc Apr 2014 OP

Well, they could also give him back the cows they took, apologize to him for the inconvenience, tularetom Apr 2014 #1

The government has spent more in this endeavor than Bundy owes. What is tells snappyturtle Apr 2014 #6

Then that's bullshit. Did they really cave to this self-styled victim and his posse? ancianita Apr 2014 #26

I wonder who defacto7 Apr 2014 #88

They gave him the cows that were in the corral - 100 - they still have 500 they had already moved jwirr Apr 2014 #113

That might lead people to crash the banks and retirement system. Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2014 #2

Fine, let them n2doc Apr 2014 #4

"let's apply the same techniques that are already being applied to the drug war" Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2014 #9

The law is the law n2doc Apr 2014 #10

"The law is the law" Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2014 #16

Rosa Parks? What? DanTex Apr 2014 #28

The goons charge fees for a non-service Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2014 #100

It's the government's land, right? DanTex Apr 2014 #103

Your so-called democratically elected government also Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2014 #109

Right, but this has nothing to do with Jim Crowe. Or fascism. DanTex Apr 2014 #111

The land was just fine for a hundred years before the goons showed up. Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2014 #115

So public parks, wildlife refuges is theft from the people? Your views are extremely libertarian. KittyWampus Apr 2014 #117

people over government, not the other way around. Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2014 #121

You need to do a bit of research as to what the BLM is randr Apr 2014 #152

"a lease with we the people have not paid the stippling fees they owe us." Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2014 #153

Out where I live our BLM managed public lands have many uses randr Apr 2014 #155

you have no idea what you're talking about elehhhhna Apr 2014 #163

When did they steal the land? It's federal land. DanTex Apr 2014 #123

Goons???? catnhatnh Apr 2014 #135

Way to prove me right Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2014 #136

Not true at all Jim Warren Apr 2014 #156

The old coot is not Rosa Parks and it is an insult to even suggest she is like him. He is not jwirr Apr 2014 #122

He's not stealing anything. Man, the BS people will shovel to justify authoritarianism. Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2014 #125

So we all have free access to public parks and other public owned buildings etc? That land is public jwirr Apr 2014 #126

The fees coupled with the limits on herd size are nothing more than Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2014 #127

Those fees and regulations go back for hundreds of years. They are not johnny come lately plans jwirr Apr 2014 #128

More authoritarian apologizing BS Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2014 #129

Read: snappyturtle Apr 2014 #164

Thats silly. Jesus Malverde Apr 2014 #84

The Drug War was one of the most successful big government programs ever initiated nationalize the fed Apr 2014 #17

While this was a big thing here on DU I don't think most of the US is interested enough to give jwirr Apr 2014 #116

I'm not talking about Bundy in that post. I'm referring to an overall public distrust. Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2014 #118

Okay, but I did not want a silly range war either so IMO this was better and allows for something jwirr Apr 2014 #124

I think if Bundy had truly wanted to instigate the militias they would snappyturtle Apr 2014 #3

What do you think would have happened if this was a Muslim Militia? politicman Apr 2014 #7

"Do you think that if OWS had guns and camped out in Times Square, it would have ended peacefully?" Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2014 #11

wrong post n/t n2doc Apr 2014 #13

The government used pepperspray and arrests to break up OWS who was non-threatening, yet a armed.. politicman Apr 2014 #20

"What lesson do you think most people are taking from this?" I hope the lesson is -- Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2014 #33

you want a world where an armed group can just claim land as their own without paying for it? politicman Apr 2014 #42

"you want a world where an armed group can just claim land as their own without paying for it?" Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2014 #48

what about oil companies and federal land, do they have the right ot claim that from the gov? politicman Apr 2014 #62

"Feds wanted to enforce that order" Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2014 #64

answer my wquestion please. politicman Apr 2014 #68

The good news is AnalystInParadise Apr 2014 #70

What would you have done in 1957? Crunchy Frog Apr 2014 #96

obeyed a LAWFUL order. SQUEE Apr 2014 #154

Decide what laws you are willing to kill for. Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2014 #72

Nobody gets killed for grazing cattle creeksneakers2 Apr 2014 #102

"the government, which is the agent of the people." Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2014 #110

I wasn't for OWS either agbdf Apr 2014 #43

I think the BLM would have tiptoed had it been an American Muslim citizenry snappyturtle Apr 2014 #18

I can guarantee if this militia were muslim, not one of them would be alive right now politicman Apr 2014 #23

///////////// snappyturtle Apr 2014 #31

you really think so? politicman Apr 2014 #39

Let's drop the Muslim b.s. Why is that even coming up? I did not see the people with snappyturtle Apr 2014 #47

i have to admire how you can keep yourself so deliberately naive. politicman Apr 2014 #60

I just try to keep an even keel without injecting factors that haven't snappyturtle Apr 2014 #66

LOL AnalystInParadise Apr 2014 #58

Post removed Post removed Apr 2014 #63

Really? AnalystInParadise Apr 2014 #65

You can't guarantee anything of the sort. cherokeeprogressive Apr 2014 #112

300 armed to the teeth Muslims demanding the federal government roll over to their political will??? MohRokTah Apr 2014 #29

LOL! You have a great imagination. Number one, this isn't Fantasy World. snappyturtle Apr 2014 #41

The right wing media creeksneakers2 Apr 2014 #104

The government would have done nothing AnalystInParadise Apr 2014 #59

You stir some serious shit for someone who's been here two days. cherokeeprogressive Apr 2014 #114

Muslims would respect the legality of public owned lands and moved their cattle. Period. ancianita Apr 2014 #27

There is that. eom MohRokTah Apr 2014 #30

Where would they move them to? nt snappyturtle Apr 2014 #44

Are you saying that you think he paid people to show up in support? Jack for Sanders Apr 2014 #5

I don't think he paid them n2doc Apr 2014 #8

Why are people posting about this being "over" ? Texasgal Apr 2014 #12

I hear you. MohRokTah Apr 2014 #15

Actually I was thinking that Bundy family should not be allowed out of their Timez Squarez Apr 2014 #14

Are you seriously proposing to starve people to death? Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2014 #19

Well if he can live off the land Timez Squarez Apr 2014 #21

What's of value here is not the herd or the grazing fees it's the land. snappyturtle Apr 2014 #24

Why is the government charging taxes to graze cattle on fallow ground? Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2014 #25

The feds have done no such thing. Nevada abdicated its responsibility for land management and turned ancianita Apr 2014 #32

Umm, yeah, I'd rather not pay my taxes either. DanTex Apr 2014 #36

It's fallow ground. Annual cost to the government to maintain: $0.00 Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2014 #49

It's habitat for some endangered species. alarimer Apr 2014 #75

Crappy argument... AnalystInParadise Apr 2014 #78

He hasn't declared sole ownership of the land Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2014 #98

Hurting people is not the objective creeksneakers2 Apr 2014 #105

"The land is managed for the public, not a few ranchers." Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2014 #108

I basically agree with you altho the land, way back, wasn't state owned. However, snappyturtle Apr 2014 #52

Starve to death? He's a fucking millionaire cattleman! Puh-lease. ancianita Apr 2014 #35

And he should pay the damn million dollars Timez Squarez Apr 2014 #45

Agreed. But he's got 'range war' issues. ancianita Apr 2014 #46

Barricade yourself in your house tonight and call the police. See how that goes for you. Starving... Logical Apr 2014 #37

You're weird. Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2014 #50

Nice user name. And I am weird? LOL! nt Logical Apr 2014 #51

Irony is ironic. And there's actually a story behind the name. Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2014 #53

They would be starving themselves to death. Crunchy Frog Apr 2014 #56

Yes, because a few hundred cattle grazing on hundreds of thousands of acres of fallow land Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2014 #61

Wow. SwankyXomb Apr 2014 #73

There was an offer but no 'agreement'. Well, let's just institute martial law and snappyturtle Apr 2014 #22

No such thing happens with the Bureau of Land Management, full of hard working people like us. ancianita Apr 2014 #34

"to start a land war over land that owned by we the people." Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2014 #99

Everyone else is not free to use the land creeksneakers2 Apr 2014 #106

Define "the public" Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2014 #107

No, they're not free. Use permits that have to be obtained; also, there are trespass laws. ancianita Apr 2014 #130

Unless the government has a specific declared purpose for the land Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2014 #132

Cite your legal links or knock off the FOX propaganda here. The state would've claimed it ancianita Apr 2014 #133

Did Nevada agree to snipers and having peoples multi-generational ranches Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2014 #134

This idiot overgrazed how own land and ruined his own business. Screw his entitled demand ancianita Apr 2014 #137

He has 160 acres. Ranches typically runs ~1,000 head to be viable. Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2014 #138

Wrong. He can buy more land. You can stop screwing with "it has ever been thus." Screw HIS goons. ancianita Apr 2014 #139

The ranchers graze their herds on the open range in common Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2014 #140

Silly win/loss theater with your nyah nyah 'I'm rubber you're glue' bullshit... you're on the wrong ancianita Apr 2014 #141

If the governemnt wanted a non-violent response they shouldn't have Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2014 #142

Read the court order and stop looking for bullies in the wrong places. READ. ancianita Apr 2014 #144

There are all kinds of court decisions Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2014 #145

The one I linked you several posts ago. Here. Again. ancianita Apr 2014 #146

"At least each case was fought legally, and have been respected" Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2014 #147

Fale equivalence argument. Now you're acting like a troll. I knew the Civil Rights Era. You trying ancianita Apr 2014 #149

"land grab by an individual" Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2014 #150

Here. Tell these guys. Let's see what they think of your thinking. ancianita Apr 2014 #151

By what authority would the US Government say that a milita person (or non-militia person) kelly1mm Apr 2014 #38

Who invited you. Why would they ever restrict your travel on BLM land? It's full of roads, anyway. ancianita Apr 2014 #143

To me this was a honeypot operation to scope out the the militia strength. CK_John Apr 2014 #40

An interesting 2naSalit Apr 2014 #89

If they were serious they would send enough troops to quell the insurection Taitertots Apr 2014 #54

And hopefully AnalystInParadise Apr 2014 #67

"Dealt with" How? Asking him nicely? Taitertots Apr 2014 #71

It would be treason AnalystInParadise Apr 2014 #81

Perhaps YOU should read the oath... Taitertots Apr 2014 #93

You surely have heard of SWAT right? nadinbrzezinski Apr 2014 #77

The person I responded to said troops AnalystInParadise Apr 2014 #79

Let me give you a couple links that will get you started into just one time that the Army nadinbrzezinski Apr 2014 #83

The AVA AnalystInParadise Apr 2014 #86

And NONE is calling the army for that nadinbrzezinski Apr 2014 #92

The AVA AnalystInParadise Apr 2014 #159

I posted this in the wrong thread nadinbrzezinski Apr 2014 #161

By none, do you mean no one? rudolph the red Apr 2014 #166

Oh and I hate to give them the traffic, but here is some nadinbrzezinski Apr 2014 #80

I have no issue with Cops, SWAT AnalystInParadise Apr 2014 #82

Ironically that has happened a few times nadinbrzezinski Apr 2014 #85

A broken clock is right twice a day AnalystInParadise Apr 2014 #87

And if you have what they want, a civil war nadinbrzezinski Apr 2014 #90

Did you forget the part about DOMESTIC enemies? nadinbrzezinski Apr 2014 #160

They could also get the money when the cattle is sold at market. Jesus Malverde Apr 2014 #55

I absolutely believe the BLM is justified cheapdate Apr 2014 #57

It would be interesting to hear from the ranchers' who are playing by the rules dflprincess Apr 2014 #69

What we forget to ask is why in 1993 Bundy decided not to any longer pay snappyturtle Apr 2014 #165

you make great points Takket Apr 2014 #74

Social security cannot be confiscated, just because someone is a criminal eallen Apr 2014 #76

It can be confiscated madville Apr 2014 #101

Is there a next step? Takket Apr 2014 #91

Not really. MohRokTah Apr 2014 #94

Absolutely there is a next step. I'm sure the Feds will be coming up with another plan. PoliticAverse Apr 2014 #158

But, they do have the time, money, and perseverance to go after whistleblowers. Tierra_y_Libertad Apr 2014 #95

We'll see what they do: I think they've still got plenty of options, beyond armed confrontation struggle4progress Apr 2014 #97

No they cannot treestar Apr 2014 #119

Ironically... vankuria Apr 2014 #120

Heh heh. Thanks for the tip! ancianita Apr 2014 #131

Apparently, we're supposed to be "looking forward"...again. Tierra_y_Libertad Apr 2014 #148

Yes, I wonder the same thing. DanTex Apr 2014 #157

BLM Statement... PoliticAverse Apr 2014 #162

apparently, anyone can call themself a journalist nowadays rudolph the red Apr 2014 #167