You absolutely deviate from that.
You never see wrong from Orange people, and rarely from white, but see nothing but wrong from darker skinned people.

You just see white and black and think it’s the same thing as right and wrong.

I don’t judge people by anything but actions….that leaves most people on my shit list, melanin levels have no bearing on that.
Outfit?

Yes, it is hypocritical because, yes, you did back Bundy at the time and were outraged he was shot, even though he took over a park armed, threatened rangers and police, shot his gun, and fled from police before being shot still armed. Hard to handle that with the courts when he’s on the highway shooting.
You supporting him and were angry, saying those cops didn’t need to shoot him, but are cheering on cops shooting an unarmed man running away no longer threatening anyone… 60 times. The difference? One was extremely more dangerous, violent, armed, and white. You only see the other one as the problem. That’s hypocritical.
I see 60 shots as the problem, and don’t believe the police version that he even fired his gun without proof.

Government overreach? Are you talking about Bundy’s other anti government armed action when he stole grazing from public lands and held off law enforcement with an armed violent militia, which you supported? Cheering him on for refusing to pay for using public lands for private profits and using deadly force against law enforcement? I’m talking about when he violently took over a park for months with more armed violent militia….which you also supported.

My life is pretty good. I have empathy for those less fortunate. I know you can’t understand thinking about someone else’s situation, but it used to be considered normal…real conservatives know that.

Lol…I’m not on any other social media at all, and I rarely get my news here. Sucker. Nice try, but I look for actual sources, not nut jobs saying what I want to hear, like Trump who got the election fraud fraud from an anonymous Twitter account.
It’s pretty telling that you think the way to “truth and understanding “ is remove all sources of information. What exactly do your eyes see with your head in that dark hole? Mine are wide open in the sunshine, sunshine. I see not only the “truth”, but also the various attempts at lies, and being (and keeping myself) fairly well educated I can tell the difference, a trait I’m afraid you sorely lack, friend. Thanks so much for the offer, but it’s like a deaf and blind man offering to lead someone with glasses across the freeway.

On the contrary, we’ve been here for you for over a decade, calmly explaining reality as you scream nonsense and fear monger. We will be here tomorrow. Assuage your fear of abandonment and maybe you can begin to think rationally.

Actually, that's not right, Interior does handle management of natural resources & public land, but the forest service specifically is handled by the Dept of Agriculture.

Then, you (We) are suggesting legitimizing their claim to be autonomous states by accepting that classification to be able to declare war against them. Horrible idea, and against international law.

I call bullshit. That's like saying if an American commits a crime outside of America, or inside it against a foreigner, America just declared war on that country. Absolute bullshit. if Pakistan's government didn't direct the attack, they aren't declaring war. You don't hold a nation accountable for the actions of a few criminals within their borders unless they are backed by that nation. Because they can't stop the monster(s) we made (neither can we) absolutely in no way means they yield their sovereignty...that's asinine. EDIT: your theory would mean the Bundies would be their own country now, sovereign and at war with America, because we were unable to stop them from taking over public land (repeatedly), and didn't prosecute any of them.

Bullshit again. Because they aren't a state, they shouldn't be treated as one, no matter what bullshit they claim. Duh. Maybe they claim to be one, but they don't run away from that claim, it just isn't given credence by accepting it. They mostly are illegal aliens in the countries they now live in.

Afghanistan had good reason to refuse Bush....and you might recall were fighting the Taliban and Al-Qaida already for control of their own country.

Afghanistan was not hosting the terrorists, they 'invaded' or morphed out of non government controlled militias (Al-Qaida started as a retirement unit for the 'freedom fighters' we trained to fight Russia) . The Afghan government has excellent reasons to never invite a super power to cross their borders ever again.....and empires have good reason to avoid doing so. Afghanistan did not start or declare war with us, some invaders and criminals squatting in caves there did.

Exactly, the terrorist organizations aren't the fault or beneficiary of the government's in the countries where they hide or invade, they are the fault of those that support them, oddly missing from the travel ban and our assassination plans. See how that might piss off Afghansans and Pakistani?

I always wonder when we see these Mach Loop videos what it is like living in the valley with all these low flying aircraft, especially near Cad West which seems to be the most popular spot to shoot videos and take photos... so then you also have traffic...

EDIT: Then on top of all that... is there a particular farm that sells parking for all these people to use, or is there a public parking spot and is it public land that everyone uses?

A better title might be 'cops bend over and lube up for Harris feed lot owners'. They didn't come out for the drone, they came out in force because the feed lot owners/managers asked them to....over nothing....at least twice.
Fresno police better not EVER claim they are overworked or that there are too few police. If they can come out in such numbers twice for possible trespass in the countryside on public land, they either have way too many officers there with nothing to do, or they are so incompetent that they ignored actual crimes to cow tow to a major local employer. Either case should lead to firings.

Good info. Thanks.

I don't know Canadian law, but here in the US, giving your name and date of birth is "identifying yourself", but when driving you must present a license if requested, and proof of insurance. It seemed like they had some issue with presenting the papers.
You're quite right by US law, when he improperly claimed to be a 'peace officer', he was technically 'impersonating law enforcement' and that's an arrest able crime....BUT they actually SAID they wanted to arrest him for calling 911 when emergency vehicles were already there, not for impersonating a peace officer....that's ridiculous and abusive and also quite 'douchebaggy', and also likely makes the cop a liar since I don't think there is any such law denying access to 911 if emergency vehicles are present.

Sorry, he lost me when he said "we're all human beings, we deserve dignity", because douchebag power trippers with a badge don't deserve dignity, they deserve a powerful shaming and a lawsuit if they injure you in any way during their power trip. The same goes for power tripping 'freemen', 'sovereign citizens', fake 'peace officers', and 'detaxers'.
It always makes me laugh that they use so many public systems to try to 'prove' that the public systems both aren't legal and don't apply to them. For instance, if they don't have to pay for road tax because they aren't under the jurisdiction of or in league with the government, aren't they guilty of both trespass for being on what they claim is private land (because no government=no public land) AND guilty of theft for using the 'private' roadways without paying the owners?
Also, if they aren't under the jurisdiction of the police, and they have no authority, why was he CALLING THE POLICE FOR HELP?!? ...and why are they arguing in court about the legality of the court....Just duh, Robert.

Well, they hardened something...but I don't think it was his resolve.

I guess the untold wasted time, money, and effort they've squandered that could have been used more productively rather than driving across the country to be illegally squatting on public land, on top of wasting tens-hundreds of thousands MORE in extra costs to 'police' them, and the cost/value of the lost park doesn't matter, it's the $7 someone wasted shipping them a dildo that's the real crime, eh? His point's only mildly valid if you completely ignore his own (and his comrades') ridiculous, far more wasteful actions.

Jesus, fucking hostile much? Thanks for posting a proper news link which this thread was lacking, but I'm not sure you read it thoroughly. "Parks shall not be used for business or social services." Nobody can sell or give away food there, to rich people or to homeless people. No hot dog stands unless they get a letter from the city.

The fact that the mayor amended his statement from "feeding the homeless just enables them" to "you can feed the homeless, but only indoors" belies his real feelings on the matter, but his excuse does have lots of precedent behind it. Cities mandate permits for all kinds of stuff, especially on public land. Not only that, but if you serve the food closer to the kitchen it stays hotter longer which reduces the risk of food poisoning. So, food safety? Technically yes. Not making the occasional exception for charity? Pretty shitty. I wonder what would happen if they asked for a permit.

And "catered food" describes how it was prepared, not how it is served. It is purchased from a business with inspected kitchens and health ratings, not from some person's back room where they leave the chicken out unrefrigerated covered in rat shit. It also usually comes in identical bins like that, whereas a randomized tupperware collection would look more like something privately prepared. It was just an observation which could indicate (or preclude) more food safety issues.

Do church kitchens have health inspections since they are not restaurants? Maybe that's the next thing the mayor can crack down on to keep the homeless hungry so they learn to get a job.

In conclusion, I hate writing follow-ups to internet comments, because now I know there's going to be another round to which I will probably not respond. Don't be offended.

You're missing the forest for your own trees concerning these government agencies and how they are used by special interests, people-Lands declared federally-owned then 'managed' in this country have been historically for public use. According to the Sierra Club: "Public lands are used in the production of oil, gas, coal, hardrock minerals, timber, and livestock in addition to being used for roads, power and gas lines, and communication facilities just to mention a few. Likewise, the Public lands are an environmental treasure house for recreation and wildlife and scenic wonder from desert to seacoast, mountain top to prairie, grassland to forest -- a shared heritage for now and the future."

Most generational ranchers don't fuck-up the land, they don't abuse it , it's their goddamn livelihood. They know it's vibe way better than the feds and their little friends....

Bundy was paying to, and had a preexisting deal with Clark County and his damn family had been cattlemen on these lands for a few generations, living in harmony with the goddamn turtles, and not trashing the place like newtbox (god you think you know what the fuckit is you know nothing about except what the TV tells you) here and others use in defense of the encroaching and over-reaching bureaucracy whose ONLY goal is to save their own interests in the rights of this land for their nefarious personal good-ol' boy club purposes.

Urbanization and ominous government with peeps with votes never getting involved in righteous decisions during the process of being ASS-RAPED from behind tomes legislation with special interest laws piggy-backed within legislation has ALWAYS been the method of politicians, licking the asses of the money-men.

If people would get an ACTUAL clue abut how the government works to benefit these cunts, they'd start to sound like people who did their homework instead of self-righteous cunts trying to sound smart.

I am happy to accommodate the cries of 'ignorance' and 'fail', heard all this shit before, so go fuck yourselves unless you have anything else to spew but scripted 'what you think you know' horse-shit. I understand that certain types of dum-basses are quite satisfied with themselves to talk a lot and say nothing but whats fed them.

The United States government fucked the Native Americans, now they're fucvkng cowboys and ranchers......No digression with land and money drunk robber-barons, especially when they have dutiful putties to interpret history to suit their delusions.

Wanna fix the situation America? Stop eating their meat. Try turtle soup, the shits awesome.

I am amazed that this has gone on so long.

That said, for the first time in my memory, I actually feel like the government is handling this correctly. They didn't go in guns blazing and claiming the victims were threats. They went in, allowed the guy to make a complete ass of himself, and let the media handle the public defamation. Now I feel like they could go in, guns blazing, and for once have a recorded justification of doing so.

That said; from everything I've heard the cattle are eating on public land that's not in use. In the realm of sanity, if he's not hurting anyone, let his fucking cattle graze.

There has been no assult on the rancher's property, it's all on Federal land.
This may be an example of why dumb americans want guns, but this is also an example of many people that SHOULDN'T be allowed to have guns. If you want a rifle to take on the federal government, you are an idiot. The feds have tanks and missiles, who wins EVERY TIME in that fight? Just ask (edit, I meant Koresh and the Waco people). His suggestions amount to telling children to go play in the freeway because it belongs to them as public land, and the fed has no right to reserve it for cars. I wish this guy walked his own talk and was standing right there in the front baiting the feds, he might be the first casualty.

This is not about 'defending freedom', it's about defending a criminal that believes federal land is his to use and damage as he sees fit, even after being told clearly and repeatedly that he has to pay for it, (which he refused to) and can only use it for certain purposes for a certain time period (which have ended long ago).

His example of allowed use, the solar company, is forced to follow environmental laws and not damage the land/environment, cattle don't follow laws and do damage the land badly. Solar and wind don't hurt turtles, cattle and vehicles (used to manage the cattle) do. Proven.
EDIT: I recall many 'ranchers' on federal land intentionally killing turtles because they burrow, making holes that cattle get hurt in.

I agree with Yogi, this guy is massively deluded and is attempting to spread his stupidity...suggesting that non-citizens take on the fed in this kind of action? WHAT?!? Also claiming that the fed managing it's land is 'facist'. Just DUH, dude. I might downvote this video for mis-information, lack of understanding, and just plain ridiculous ideas if I could.
I note this blowhard isn't standing with the rancher armed...maybe he doesn't WANT to be shot?

Right? Fine, banned from National parks for life, and their public self-immolation seems a harsh enough mistress? ...I'd add a judgement of a mandatory probation of five years wearing a shirt in public as community service which reads, "Utah Rock-Tipper Guy."

The same people who would sit at their computers and pontificate after working the system's chores at the system's game....and who are about as involved with real-time politics as it takes to cast a vote after reading blogs and bitching...the same recycle dutifully and with much sniffing of their own fart-gas with windows sealed tightly in their Prius'.....Would place public lands chicaneries right up there with serial killing.

It's getting very close to critical mass ignoramus-ism, idiocratic hell.

No one has the right to disobey a lawful order. You cannot have a rule of law that way. If it is an unlawful order, that is a different story. If you want to protest, you also have to be willing to take the heat, and to be civilly disobedient and risk arrest. What you're hoping for is to gain public support and enact some change in the mind of the public, which will hopefully led to a change in the system. That's the way it works. I don't buy that someones highfalutin ideals gives anyone the inherent right to defy the police. That's called anarchy. I feel the authorities here were not being entirely unfair, and did let them stay for a few days before asking them to leave. Why should people have the right to form impromptu tent cities and live in the public space for weeks on end? That's not a protest, that's called squatting.

I am speaking here of western style democracies. Totalitarian regimes are a different story. I believe God gives us certain inalliable rights, and if an authority is suppressing those rights, I believe we have right under God to transgress the earthly authority in those cases.

>> ^Kofi:
What you are saying is that if it is legal it is right. Legal positivism. If it is illegal then the police have the duty to respond with whatever power is within their means, not just what is appropriate.
Lets take that principle to its logical conclusion.
If the government says "You are not allowed to continue with the activity that you are doing. Therefore we are asserting our duty to protect the community at large and are going to forcefully prevent you from continuing in your unlawful act" Does this seem reasonable?
Google "Laws for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service"
This is the logical conclusion. What the protesters represent is a cause higher than that of the law. They are going about it in a peaceful manner with the minimal violation of laws and others rights (rights pertaining not to life, limb or property but of occupying public land. PUBLIC land).
If this is still unsatisfactory please ask why it is ok for police to do this and not ok for the lethal crackdowns we saw in Egypt, Syria, Yemen and Tunisia.
>> ^shinyblurry:
I'll preface this with the statement that I feel that police brutality is on the rise and unchecked power is never a good thing, however
This video is not shocking. What is shocking to me is that people seem to think they can defy the police and get away with it. They had no right to be there, and they were told to leave and refused to go. So therefore, the police had the right to use reasonable measures to force them to leave. Were some cops using more force than necessary here? Probably so, but the protesters made the conscious choice to resist which gives a police officer the right to use force at their discretion. If you are going to use civil disobedience as a protest, you should expect to be arrested. If you are going to openly defy the police, you should expect a response. In civil society there is a rule of law. I don't see why anyone is shocked at the police enforcing the law on people who are breaking it. It doesn't matter how peacefully they were protesting; their right to protest became null and void when they decided to refuse to obey a lawful order.

What you are saying is that if it is legal it is right. Legal positivism. If it is illegal then the police have the duty to respond with whatever power is within their means, not just what is appropriate.

Lets take that principle to its logical conclusion.

If the government says "You are not allowed to continue with the activity that you are doing. Therefore we are asserting our duty to protect the community at large and are going to forcefully prevent you from continuing in your unlawful act" Does this seem reasonable?

Google "Laws for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service"

This is the logical conclusion. What the protesters represent is a cause higher than that of the law. They are going about it in a peaceful manner with the minimal violation of laws and others rights (rights pertaining not to life, limb or property but of occupying public land. PUBLIC land).

If this is still unsatisfactory please ask why it is ok for police to do this and not ok for the lethal crackdowns we saw in Egypt, Syria, Yemen and Tunisia.

>> ^shinyblurry:

I'll preface this with the statement that I feel that police brutality is on the rise and unchecked power is never a good thing, however
This video is not shocking. What is shocking to me is that people seem to think they can defy the police and get away with it. They had no right to be there, and they were told to leave and refused to go. So therefore, the police had the right to use reasonable measures to force them to leave. Were some cops using more force than necessary here? Probably so, but the protesters made the conscious choice to resist which gives a police officer the right to use force at their discretion. If you are going to use civil disobedience as a protest, you should expect to be arrested. If you are going to openly defy the police, you should expect a response. In civil society there is a rule of law. I don't see why anyone is shocked at the police enforcing the law on people who are breaking it. It doesn't matter how peacefully they were protesting; their right to protest became null and void when they decided to refuse to obey a lawful order.

Hrm. In reading QM's silliness, a thought occurred to me--how many homeowners actually own their homes? In a strictly legal sense, until you pay off your mortgage, doesn't the bank actually own the land? Back when land was a necessary requirement for voting rights, people owned their land, free and clear. Would it work now?

And one could also argue that all Americans who pay taxes do indeed own land--all public land is held in our names.