In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Meanwhile....the gov. is raping your * on a daily basis. How about directing some of that outrage where it really matters.quote:Originally posted by jones0430
quote:Originally posted by nord
Before we all go off the deep end...
What Mr. Bundy is or is not is irrelevant. What is relevant is the manner by which government chooses to deal with a citizen. A herd of cattle grazing on public land can't possibly justify armed government agents.
This is not to say that Mr. Bundy shouldn't be dealt with, assuming there exists a basis for action and that government didn't change the game midstream. Further, while I find racial slurs repugnant, Mr. Bundy has a right to believe and a right to speak his mind.
I said in a previous post and I'll say once more... I suspect there's a lot I don't know and I suspect that neither side is innocent in this matter. All the same I've seen nothing that would justify the use of armed force against Mr. Bundy.
For all the world Mr. Bundy could be any citizen that government targets for any reason whatsoever. Once armed agents threatening force become the norm for even a minor offense or imagined offense, then we're all in deep trouble. It makes no difference whether it be Bundy or one of us. There's a line we dare not allow government to cross.
they gave him 20 some years before acting. That seems to be EXTREMELY reasonable and tolerant. If you failed to pay just debits and continued with theft of this scale in a commercial setting you would be facing a civil suit much sooner, with claims for compensatory damages of a greater scale.
For people valuing free enterprise his actions are despicable and were tolerated for far too long. He is a criminal, and should be dealt with as such.
quote:Originally posted by jones0430
quote:Originally posted by nord
Before we all go off the deep end...
What Mr. Bundy is or is not is irrelevant. What is relevant is the manner by which government chooses to deal with a citizen. A herd of cattle grazing on public land can't possibly justify armed government agents.
This is not to say that Mr. Bundy shouldn't be dealt with, assuming there exists a basis for action and that government didn't change the game midstream. Further, while I find racial slurs repugnant, Mr. Bundy has a right to believe and a right to speak his mind.
I said in a previous post and I'll say once more... I suspect there's a lot I don't know and I suspect that neither side is innocent in this matter. All the same I've seen nothing that would justify the use of armed force against Mr. Bundy.
For all the world Mr. Bundy could be any citizen that government targets for any reason whatsoever. Once armed agents threatening force become the norm for even a minor offense or imagined offense, then we're all in deep trouble. It makes no difference whether it be Bundy or one of us. There's a line we dare not allow government to cross.
they gave him 20 some years before acting. That seems to be EXTREMELY reasonable and tolerant. If you failed to pay just debits and continued with theft of this scale in a commercial setting you would be facing a civil suit much sooner, with claims for compensatory damages of a greater scale.
For people valuing free enterprise his actions are despicable and were tolerated for far too long. He is a criminal, and should be dealt with as such.
You fail to take into account that Bundy's decision not to pay the BLM was in response to what he considered improper behavior by the feds. It was a protest. He took a stand.
Many here only see Bundy's role and operate with the assumption that the BLM and other federal agencies were on the up and up throughout this whole mess.
The problem didn't start with Bundy's non-payment. The original problem was with the gov deciding the ranchers had to go and using various types of force to encourage ranchers to leave. Bundy's decision to withold payment was the start of his protest...not the start of the problem.
quote:Originally posted by skicat
Bundy's decision to withold payment was the start of his protest...not the start of the problem.
If that were true Bundy would be even more stupid than I thought he was. If you are claiming the protest was over his being told to reduce his grazing herd closer to the amount he contracted for because of the turtles, then it would have been more important than ever to pay the lease to maintain as much claim to the land as possible.
I believe his claim that he really is insane and thinks the United States can't own land because the United States doesn't exist. I believe he really does believe he owns that land, even though he has stopped making that claim.
My wife's family had a similar problem with my father-in-law some years back shortly before he died. He decided he owned the farm across the road from a farm he sold years ago. The family who owned the farm disagreed. Fortunately we eventually got my father-in-law to drop it before he got killed, but we never did convince him he didn't get screwed out of a farm he never owned.
quote:Originally posted by JamesRK
quote:Originally posted by skicat
Bundy's decision to withold payment was the start of his protest...not the start of the problem.
If that were true Bundy would be even more stupid than I thought he was. If you are claiming the protest was over his being told to reduce his grazing herd closer to the amount he contracted for because of the turtles, then it would have been more important than ever to pay the lease to maintain as much claim to the land as possible.
I believe his claim that he really is insane and thinks the United States can't own land because the United States doesn't exist. I believe he really does believe he owns that land, even though he has stopped making that claim.
My wife's family had a similar problem with my father-in-law some years back shortly before he died. He decided he owned the farm across the road from a farm he sold years ago. The family who owned the farm disagreed. Fortunately we eventually got my father-in-law to drop it before he got killed, but we never did convince him he didn't get screwed out of a farm he never owned.
I would agree that witholding payment was not the best strategy but that mistake pales in comparison to the different forms of force applied, not only to Bundy, but to all the other ranchers"Encouraged" to give up their way of life at the whim of bureaucrats. That is not how ouir country is supposed to function.
I believe the turtle is a spurious claim, a convenient tool, to once again apply force against the ranchers.
I have not seen anything which states Bundy believes he owns the land only that he believes he is due something other than what the BLM is allowing. Those details do not concern me even to the point where Bundy is proven clinically delusional. He is incindental to this proof of govt excess.
quote:Originally posted by skicat
I have not seen anything which states Bundy believes he owns the land only that he believes he is due something other than what the BLM is allowing. Those details do not concern me even to the point where Bundy is proven clinically delusional. He is incindental to this proof of govt excess.
In the early days of the publicity campaign he referred to it as "his land" a couple of times on TV. At that point I was ready to jump on his bandwagon but waited for more information. The more information I got the phonier Bundy got. I didn't document any of it, so there is no reason you should take my word. He lost my benefit of the doubt when he said he stopped paying because he doesn't believe the United States can own land because the United States doesn't exist.
If your point is only government excesses, we have plenty examples of that without this mental defect. At this point I'm convinced he is a sovereign citizen, even though I've never heard him use those words. Under the circumstances I wouldn't support his cause even if I thought he was right, but he ain't.
This isn't about Bundy. This is about getting the last of 50 ranchers off this land, freeing it up to be "sold" for a "clean energy site". In all likely hood some politician will financially benefit hugely either directly or indirectly. Watch what happens in the future. I am willing to bet it wont be a wild horse range. And if you don't like buying made in China Gerber knives you sure aren't going to like the developer of this site.
quote:Originally posted by Milliron
This isn't about Bundy. This is about getting the last of 50 ranchers off this land, freeing it up to be "sold" for a "clean energy site". In all likely hood some politician will financially benefit hugely either directly or indirectly. Watch what happens in the future. I am willing to bet it wont be a wild horse range. And if you don't like buying made in China Gerber knives you sure aren't going to like the developer of this site.
That is completely false. Tin foil hat territory. There WAS a plan for a solar plant, Reid son WAS involved with it, but it was dropped, and was supposed to be built someplace else....NOT ON THE LAND BUNDY WAS USING.
Can't bring Obama into this; no false equivalencies here.
He can protest all he wants. He can say whatever he wants. The whole point of a protest is the willingness to suffer the consequences.
There are a lot of defective people out there, and now that we have 24-7 media, video equipment is cheap, and the internet allows for anything, we get to see them all...
quote:Originally posted by JamesRK
quote:Originally posted by skicat
I have not seen anything which states Bundy believes he owns the land only that he believes he is due something other than what the BLM is allowing. Those details do not concern me even to the point where Bundy is proven clinically delusional. He is incindental to this proof of govt excess.
In the early days of the publicity campaign he referred to it as "his land" a couple of times on TV. At that point I was ready to jump on his bandwagon but waited for more information. The more information I got the phonier Bundy got. I didn't document any of it, so there is no reason you should take my word. He lost my benefit of the doubt when he said he stopped paying because he doesn't believe the United States can own land because the United States doesn't exist.
If your point is only government excesses, we have plenty examples of that without this mental defect. At this point I'm convinced he is a sovereign citizen, even though I've never heard him use those words. Under the circumstances I wouldn't support his cause even if I thought he was right, but he ain't.
James I'd take your word anytime. It may be that Bundy will have to pony up the back lease money, whatever that amount truly is, and I'm OK with that. The whole point of protest is to do a 180 with what they are requiring of you and in that regard I am not upset with Bundy not paying while this is resolved.
What I like about this particular instance is that, for a change, citizens worked together to stand in opposition against a Federal Govt that is over stepping and trampling rights. If I had my choice, I'd have probably picked a different focus for this particular federal wake up call. I didn't get to choose, but I do have the opportunity to support my fellow citizens when they do finally motivate to attempt to improve things for all of us. I want this to stop and I only see that happening if we jump on every agency which tries to bulldoze the people they are tasked with supporting.
quote:Originally posted by redhawkk480
the following came from an email , seems to fit this topic
There are British Africans, British Chinese, British Asian, British Turks, etc., etc., etc.
And then there are just British, You know what I mean, plain old English people that were born here. You can include the Welsh, the Scottish and the people who live off our shores of Great Britain on tiny islands Yes, we are all true Brits.
The others that live here say the following:
You pass me on the street and sneer in my direction. You call me 'White boy,' 'Cracker,' '*,' 'Whitey,' 'Caveman'.... White trash... White brat .... And that's OK..
But when I call you, black person, Spade, Towel head, Sand-black person, *, Camel Jockey, Beaner, Gook, or * .. You call me a racist.
You say that whites commit a lot of violence against you... So why are the ghettos the most dangerous places to live?
You have the Muslim Council of Great Britain.
You have Black History Month.
You have swimming pools for Asian women.
You have Islamic banks for Muslims only.
You have year of the dragon day for Chinese people.
If we had a White Pride Day, you would call us racists.
If we had White History Month, we'd be racists.
If we had any organization for only whites to 'advance' OUR lives, we'd be racists.
A white woman could not be in the Miss Black Britain or Miss Asia, but any colour can be in the Miss UK .
If we had a college fund that only gave white students scholarships... You know we'd be racists.
There are over 200 openly proclaimed Muslim only schools in England. Yet if there were 'White schools only', that would be a racist school!
In the Bradford riots and Toxteth riots, you believed that you were standing-up for your race and rights. If we stood-up for our race and rights, you would call us racists.
You are proud to be black, brown, yellow and orange, and you're not afraid to announce it. But when we announce our white pride, you call us racists.
We fly our flag, we are racists. If we celebrate St' Georges day we are racists.
You can fly your flag and it's called diversity. You celebrate your cultures and it's called multiculturalism.
You rob us, carjack us, and rape our daughters. But, when a white police officer arrests a black gang member or beats up an Asian drug dealer running from the law and posing a threat to society, you call him a racist.
I am proud... But you call me a racist.
Why is it that only whites can be racists??
There is nothing improper about this e-mail.. Let's see which of you are proud enough to send it on.
I sadly don't think many will. That's why we have LOST most of OUR RIGHTS in this country. We won't stand up for ourselves!
BEING PROUD TO BE WHITE! It's not a crime, YET... But getting very close!
I have said many times, there is nothing inherently wrong with racism. It exists and is NORMAL. What is harmful is BIGOTRY. People should learn the distinction.
Some will die in hot pursuit
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
quote:Originally posted by 35 Whelen
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
Turns out those comments were a part of a much larger talk he was giving that, given the entire context, don't do so much to paint him in a racist light that you might first think, given only the excerpt.[:I]
But, I suppose this surprises no one.
I'm not surprised, by some of the responses in this thread, at least. Some here are likely due for some reconstructive knee surgery.[;)]
Yeah, I just can't get my leg to jerk like that... as some do here.
Some will die in hot pursuit
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
quote:Originally posted by wiplash
Again, Where is the rest of the Video? This one was from ABC News and has been chopped and cropped.
I'm not the one who wants to see him repeat it. I've already spent more time on this than I intended to and I saw him say it twice on FOX News Channel. Whether or not you choose to believe it is your option.
You can see a long winded version of more or less the same thing in a long winded version, 37 minutes 52 seconds, in a video posted by SG in another thread. It was intended to be a "puff piece" favoring Bundy. If you actually listen to what Bundy says, it didn't turn out that way.
quote:Originally posted by JamesRK
quote:Originally posted by wiplash
Again, Where is the rest of the Video? This one was from ABC News and has been chopped and cropped.
I'm not the one who wants to see him repeat it. I've already spent more time on this than I intended to and I saw him say it twice on FOX News Channel. Whether or not you choose to believe it is your option.
You can see a long winded version of more or less the same thing in a long winded version, 37 minutes 52 seconds, in a video posted by SG in another thread. It was intended to be a "puff piece" favoring Bundy. If you actually listen to what Bundy says, it didn't turn out that way.
I did watch it and I can't believe that you would disagree with anything that he said!
The 9 second video that you posted, was from the ABC News network, one of the worst for reporting the truth. Could you post up the "full" videos from Fox?
There is no such thing as Liberal Men, only Liberal Women with Penises.'
It will take more time and effort to find it than I'm willing to put into it. That is what I was looking for when I found this one. You can feel free to look as long as you wish. Since I said it's your option to believe it or not I won't take offence that you don't believe I saw it on FOX on two different occasions.
Did you actually listen to what Bundy said in the long video? Mixed in with the meaningless cow cookies, he said twice that he believes in individual sovereignty. That's the sneaky way of saying he's a sovereign citizen. He also says anybody not from Nevada has no rights in Nevada. You are a guest and he is the host. I think it would follow that since Cliven Bundy is from Arizona, he has no rights in Nevada.
Comments
quote:Originally posted by nord
Before we all go off the deep end...
What Mr. Bundy is or is not is irrelevant. What is relevant is the manner by which government chooses to deal with a citizen. A herd of cattle grazing on public land can't possibly justify armed government agents.
This is not to say that Mr. Bundy shouldn't be dealt with, assuming there exists a basis for action and that government didn't change the game midstream. Further, while I find racial slurs repugnant, Mr. Bundy has a right to believe and a right to speak his mind.
I said in a previous post and I'll say once more... I suspect there's a lot I don't know and I suspect that neither side is innocent in this matter. All the same I've seen nothing that would justify the use of armed force against Mr. Bundy.
For all the world Mr. Bundy could be any citizen that government targets for any reason whatsoever. Once armed agents threatening force become the norm for even a minor offense or imagined offense, then we're all in deep trouble. It makes no difference whether it be Bundy or one of us. There's a line we dare not allow government to cross.
they gave him 20 some years before acting. That seems to be EXTREMELY reasonable and tolerant. If you failed to pay just debits and continued with theft of this scale in a commercial setting you would be facing a civil suit much sooner, with claims for compensatory damages of a greater scale.
For people valuing free enterprise his actions are despicable and were tolerated for far too long. He is a criminal, and should be dealt with as such.
quote:Originally posted by nord
Before we all go off the deep end...
What Mr. Bundy is or is not is irrelevant. What is relevant is the manner by which government chooses to deal with a citizen. A herd of cattle grazing on public land can't possibly justify armed government agents.
This is not to say that Mr. Bundy shouldn't be dealt with, assuming there exists a basis for action and that government didn't change the game midstream. Further, while I find racial slurs repugnant, Mr. Bundy has a right to believe and a right to speak his mind.
I said in a previous post and I'll say once more... I suspect there's a lot I don't know and I suspect that neither side is innocent in this matter. All the same I've seen nothing that would justify the use of armed force against Mr. Bundy.
For all the world Mr. Bundy could be any citizen that government targets for any reason whatsoever. Once armed agents threatening force become the norm for even a minor offense or imagined offense, then we're all in deep trouble. It makes no difference whether it be Bundy or one of us. There's a line we dare not allow government to cross.
they gave him 20 some years before acting. That seems to be EXTREMELY reasonable and tolerant. If you failed to pay just debits and continued with theft of this scale in a commercial setting you would be facing a civil suit much sooner, with claims for compensatory damages of a greater scale.
For people valuing free enterprise his actions are despicable and were tolerated for far too long. He is a criminal, and should be dealt with as such.
You fail to take into account that Bundy's decision not to pay the BLM was in response to what he considered improper behavior by the feds. It was a protest. He took a stand.
Many here only see Bundy's role and operate with the assumption that the BLM and other federal agencies were on the up and up throughout this whole mess.
The problem didn't start with Bundy's non-payment. The original problem was with the gov deciding the ranchers had to go and using various types of force to encourage ranchers to leave. Bundy's decision to withold payment was the start of his protest...not the start of the problem.
Bundy's decision to withold payment was the start of his protest...not the start of the problem.
If that were true Bundy would be even more stupid than I thought he was. If you are claiming the protest was over his being told to reduce his grazing herd closer to the amount he contracted for because of the turtles, then it would have been more important than ever to pay the lease to maintain as much claim to the land as possible.
I believe his claim that he really is insane and thinks the United States can't own land because the United States doesn't exist. I believe he really does believe he owns that land, even though he has stopped making that claim.
My wife's family had a similar problem with my father-in-law some years back shortly before he died. He decided he owned the farm across the road from a farm he sold years ago. The family who owned the farm disagreed. Fortunately we eventually got my father-in-law to drop it before he got killed, but we never did convince him he didn't get screwed out of a farm he never owned.
quote:Originally posted by skicat
Bundy's decision to withold payment was the start of his protest...not the start of the problem.
If that were true Bundy would be even more stupid than I thought he was. If you are claiming the protest was over his being told to reduce his grazing herd closer to the amount he contracted for because of the turtles, then it would have been more important than ever to pay the lease to maintain as much claim to the land as possible.
I believe his claim that he really is insane and thinks the United States can't own land because the United States doesn't exist. I believe he really does believe he owns that land, even though he has stopped making that claim.
My wife's family had a similar problem with my father-in-law some years back shortly before he died. He decided he owned the farm across the road from a farm he sold years ago. The family who owned the farm disagreed. Fortunately we eventually got my father-in-law to drop it before he got killed, but we never did convince him he didn't get screwed out of a farm he never owned.
I would agree that witholding payment was not the best strategy but that mistake pales in comparison to the different forms of force applied, not only to Bundy, but to all the other ranchers"Encouraged" to give up their way of life at the whim of bureaucrats. That is not how ouir country is supposed to function.
I believe the turtle is a spurious claim, a convenient tool, to once again apply force against the ranchers.
I have not seen anything which states Bundy believes he owns the land only that he believes he is due something other than what the BLM is allowing. Those details do not concern me even to the point where Bundy is proven clinically delusional. He is incindental to this proof of govt excess.
I have not seen anything which states Bundy believes he owns the land only that he believes he is due something other than what the BLM is allowing. Those details do not concern me even to the point where Bundy is proven clinically delusional. He is incindental to this proof of govt excess.
In the early days of the publicity campaign he referred to it as "his land" a couple of times on TV. At that point I was ready to jump on his bandwagon but waited for more information. The more information I got the phonier Bundy got. I didn't document any of it, so there is no reason you should take my word. He lost my benefit of the doubt when he said he stopped paying because he doesn't believe the United States can own land because the United States doesn't exist.
If your point is only government excesses, we have plenty examples of that without this mental defect. At this point I'm convinced he is a sovereign citizen, even though I've never heard him use those words. Under the circumstances I wouldn't support his cause even if I thought he was right, but he ain't.
This isn't about Bundy. This is about getting the last of 50 ranchers off this land, freeing it up to be "sold" for a "clean energy site". In all likely hood some politician will financially benefit hugely either directly or indirectly. Watch what happens in the future. I am willing to bet it wont be a wild horse range. And if you don't like buying made in China Gerber knives you sure aren't going to like the developer of this site.
That is completely false. Tin foil hat territory. There WAS a plan for a solar plant, Reid son WAS involved with it, but it was dropped, and was supposed to be built someplace else....NOT ON THE LAND BUNDY WAS USING.
He can protest all he wants. He can say whatever he wants. The whole point of a protest is the willingness to suffer the consequences.
There are a lot of defective people out there, and now that we have 24-7 media, video equipment is cheap, and the internet allows for anything, we get to see them all...
quote:Originally posted by skicat
I have not seen anything which states Bundy believes he owns the land only that he believes he is due something other than what the BLM is allowing. Those details do not concern me even to the point where Bundy is proven clinically delusional. He is incindental to this proof of govt excess.
In the early days of the publicity campaign he referred to it as "his land" a couple of times on TV. At that point I was ready to jump on his bandwagon but waited for more information. The more information I got the phonier Bundy got. I didn't document any of it, so there is no reason you should take my word. He lost my benefit of the doubt when he said he stopped paying because he doesn't believe the United States can own land because the United States doesn't exist.
If your point is only government excesses, we have plenty examples of that without this mental defect. At this point I'm convinced he is a sovereign citizen, even though I've never heard him use those words. Under the circumstances I wouldn't support his cause even if I thought he was right, but he ain't.
James I'd take your word anytime. It may be that Bundy will have to pony up the back lease money, whatever that amount truly is, and I'm OK with that. The whole point of protest is to do a 180 with what they are requiring of you and in that regard I am not upset with Bundy not paying while this is resolved.
What I like about this particular instance is that, for a change, citizens worked together to stand in opposition against a Federal Govt that is over stepping and trampling rights. If I had my choice, I'd have probably picked a different focus for this particular federal wake up call. I didn't get to choose, but I do have the opportunity to support my fellow citizens when they do finally motivate to attempt to improve things for all of us. I want this to stop and I only see that happening if we jump on every agency which tries to bulldoze the people they are tasked with supporting.
the following came from an email , seems to fit this topic
There are British Africans, British Chinese, British Asian, British Turks, etc., etc., etc.
And then there are just British, You know what I mean, plain old English people that were born here. You can include the Welsh, the Scottish and the people who live off our shores of Great Britain on tiny islands Yes, we are all true Brits.
The others that live here say the following:
You pass me on the street and sneer in my direction. You call me 'White boy,' 'Cracker,' '*,' 'Whitey,' 'Caveman'.... White trash... White brat .... And that's OK..
But when I call you, black person, Spade, Towel head, Sand-black person, *, Camel Jockey, Beaner, Gook, or * .. You call me a racist.
You say that whites commit a lot of violence against you... So why are the ghettos the most dangerous places to live?
You have the Muslim Council of Great Britain.
You have Black History Month.
You have swimming pools for Asian women.
You have Islamic banks for Muslims only.
You have year of the dragon day for Chinese people.
If we had a White Pride Day, you would call us racists.
If we had White History Month, we'd be racists.
If we had any organization for only whites to 'advance' OUR lives, we'd be racists.
A white woman could not be in the Miss Black Britain or Miss Asia, but any colour can be in the Miss UK .
If we had a college fund that only gave white students scholarships... You know we'd be racists.
There are over 200 openly proclaimed Muslim only schools in England. Yet if there were 'White schools only', that would be a racist school!
In the Bradford riots and Toxteth riots, you believed that you were standing-up for your race and rights. If we stood-up for our race and rights, you would call us racists.
You are proud to be black, brown, yellow and orange, and you're not afraid to announce it. But when we announce our white pride, you call us racists.
We fly our flag, we are racists. If we celebrate St' Georges day we are racists.
You can fly your flag and it's called diversity. You celebrate your cultures and it's called multiculturalism.
You rob us, carjack us, and rape our daughters. But, when a white police officer arrests a black gang member or beats up an Asian drug dealer running from the law and posing a threat to society, you call him a racist.
I am proud... But you call me a racist.
Why is it that only whites can be racists??
There is nothing improper about this e-mail.. Let's see which of you are proud enough to send it on.
I sadly don't think many will. That's why we have LOST most of OUR RIGHTS in this country. We won't stand up for ourselves!
BEING PROUD TO BE WHITE! It's not a crime, YET... But getting very close!
I have said many times, there is nothing inherently wrong with racism. It exists and is NORMAL. What is harmful is BIGOTRY. People should learn the distinction.
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
Turns out those comments were a part of a much larger talk he was giving that, given the entire context, don't do so much to paint him in a racist light that you might first think, given only the excerpt.[:I]
But, I suppose this surprises no one.
I'm not surprised, by some of the responses in this thread, at least. Some here are likely due for some reconstructive knee surgery.[;)]
Yeah, I just can't get my leg to jerk like that... as some do here.
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
This is a nine second video staring Cliven Bundy.
Again, Where is the rest of the Video? This one was from ABC News and has been chopped and cropped.
Again, Where is the rest of the Video? This one was from ABC News and has been chopped and cropped.
I'm not the one who wants to see him repeat it. I've already spent more time on this than I intended to and I saw him say it twice on FOX News Channel. Whether or not you choose to believe it is your option.
You can see a long winded version of more or less the same thing in a long winded version, 37 minutes 52 seconds, in a video posted by SG in another thread. It was intended to be a "puff piece" favoring Bundy. If you actually listen to what Bundy says, it didn't turn out that way.
LINK to SG's video
quote:Originally posted by wiplash
Again, Where is the rest of the Video? This one was from ABC News and has been chopped and cropped.
I'm not the one who wants to see him repeat it. I've already spent more time on this than I intended to and I saw him say it twice on FOX News Channel. Whether or not you choose to believe it is your option.
You can see a long winded version of more or less the same thing in a long winded version, 37 minutes 52 seconds, in a video posted by SG in another thread. It was intended to be a "puff piece" favoring Bundy. If you actually listen to what Bundy says, it didn't turn out that way.
LINK to SG's video
I did watch it and I can't believe that you would disagree with anything that he said!
The 9 second video that you posted, was from the ABC News network, one of the worst for reporting the truth. Could you post up the "full" videos from Fox?
Did you actually listen to what Bundy said in the long video? Mixed in with the meaningless cow cookies, he said twice that he believes in individual sovereignty. That's the sneaky way of saying he's a sovereign citizen. He also says anybody not from Nevada has no rights in Nevada. You are a guest and he is the host. I think it would follow that since Cliven Bundy is from Arizona, he has no rights in Nevada.
http://danaloeschradio.com/the-western-war-last-remaining-rancher-vs-the-federal-govt/