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.

Yes. I think the title should read "High electrical tower nearly grazes a runner."

We're not just talking grazing land here, alfalfa makes up a considerable amount of livestock feed. And you know where they're growing it? In the middle of the fucking desert, but as it stands right now, land in the desert is cheap and so is water, so that's what we do.

That's the scariest bit. On the surface it looks like a peaceful farm, because when you're going past it, all you see is lovely green grass and sheep grazing, it looks lovely and peaceful.

You don't get to see the castration, horn removal, tail docking and mulesing without any sort of anesthetic - this happens to every single lamb.

You also don't get to see the workers having a bad day and abusing (after the product is removed from them). This might not happen to every sheep, but with around 30 sheep getting sheared an hour by each person, you can bet at that speed it's not a pleasant experience even without malicious intent.

Outsiders just see a lovely country side, with sheep grazing before and after the abuse.

Thanks

Bandit is a steer, so screwing the cows isn't a concern, it's really all about the money. It takes about a hectare of grazing land per animal (see http://www.mla.com.au/Extension-and-training/Tools-and-calculators/Stocking-rate-calculator for the gory details) if you raise them outside, compared to a few square metres if you keep them chained up.

I'm a little surprised that this is allowed in a civilised country.

Anyone who's read my comments knows I'm not a big fan of the police these days, but they were totally in the right here, and the description is absolutely ridiculous BS IMO.
People who try to make a police misconduct case out of this should think first and realize that offering this as evidence of police misconduct/abuse minimizes ACTUAL misconduct/abuse. There was NO "brutal beating", no choking seen, no stomping, no 'swarming by 9 officers', no 'slamming to the concrete', no 'arrested for jaywalking', just a teenager acting a fool and ignoring commands, pushing and kicking officers, and grabbing their weapons, all of which didn't end well for him when he's arrested for resisting arrest and refusing to comply with a direct lawful order from a peace officer...he'll be incredibly lucky if another charge for assault on a police officer isn't coming.
I wonder, what alternative actions do those complaining about this think the police SHOULD have taken? Just let him walk away indignantly? The law simply doesn't work that way.

Jaywalking may not be an arrest-able offence, but refusing/ignoring an officer's lawful command to stop certainly is, so is resisting when the cop tries to control/arrest you (like pulling the cop's hand off your arm, pushing the cop, or grabbing the baton that has yet to hit you).
The kid only gets hit with the baton (in the video) when he grabs it with both hands and tries to wrestle it away from the cop, as the cop wrestles for control of the weapon, the kid gets grazed in the face. When the other 4 (not 9) officers take control, he continues to fight with them and is taken to the ground.
As to his being a kid, he certainly thought he was adult enough to ignore/fight with the police. As far as I could tell, they all used restraint (compared to the normal dog pile and face kicks we've seen in the past in this kind of situation). I really don't think this video is going to help that 'kid' in court.
I'm somewhat surprised they didn't go after the woman screaming for interfering with a police action, or at least command her to move away. Telling the kid to stay seated (and ignore the command to get on the ground) sure seems to meet the criteria in my eyes.

Incorrect, he said we laugh because the jokes are a little bit true.

And if there are protected species, then there are no jokes left at the expense of other people, even self deprecating ones... That's the upside of equality, everyone get's grazed by jokes at some point in time. You can either choose to have the thinnest skin on the planet and a persecution complex the size of the Titanic or be a part of the human race and accept that at some point in time, there will be a joke where you or someone just like you is the butt...

That's not how ewe do it? Gotta tenderize that meat before it goes baa'd. Don't be like all the sheeple, use sheer force. I'm grazing these puns, it that how you wool'd do it?

/takes lap

I have wrestled with a few people (mostly females), tackled a few people who were running from the police, pointed my weapon at a few people, and drive-stunned (taser) one guy who was resisting arrest. That's it for 30 years.

My dept. usually had around 35 officers and I've known two of them since 1975 or so who have shot at anyone. One officer shot a guy who was trying to run him over in a car, that guy was killed. The officer left the dept and found other work.
Another officer-involved shooting was an officer who shot a guy who had committed a homicide and was running away.
One shooting involved a cop who was shot at and returned fire, hitting one guy with a grazing shot.
So that's a hell of a lot of interactions with people (average about 2000 people per year arrested) with very little deadly force involved.

If you want to counsel police officers involved in using force...that's fine with me.

What cracks me up is that she actually touches all those women, and Channing doesn't. Some, but not all.

Hypocrisy, thy name is dick graze

First, use by cattle causes damage. Second, if the cattle didn't 'use' the land (as the law has said it shouldn't for well over a decade), wildlife could, and the few minimal remaining wildlife areas are a legitimate use (unless you believe humans have dominion over all and should use it all up ASAP), so the land is not "unused land" to most.
I must believe his bill also includes many penalties (if not mostly penalties) for not paying it for decades, and fines for grazing on non-grazing land. Common resources are exactly that, common, and not for one person to convert to their own (illegal and damaging) uses (excluding other permitted uses), especially not for free.

Once again you personally insult, and ignore most of the facts in order to further your insanity. I'll see your 'child' and raise you to infant.
FAIL
I only read your post because someone else replied quoting you (and I can't fathom why it showed your comment even then, it should have been hidden since you're ignored...@lucky760, what happened?)
You can't parrot what you haven't heard said, and no one else is pointing out that you can't be a patriot if you don't believe in the Fed, which unites the states....at least no one I've heard.
Your misconception based on intentionally misleading, 1/4 true, right wing media BS is obvious...this guy is a violent felon who publicly threatened to use violent force (against law enforcement that was not yet there in force OR heavily armed) to enforce his "right" to continue to break the law, no question, as are all those that brandish weapons at officers of the law, federal or not. It's the law that you can't do that to people not attacking you or breaking into your property (and NEVER to law officials) ...and no one attacked the cowards hiding behind their wall of women and children OR the Bundys, they simply confiscated illegally grazing cattle on FEDERAL land, belonging to all of us.
EDIT: and you ignore that most of these people don't consider themselves citizens, as they don't believe in the fed...without which there is no U in USA. They are citizens of their own states (in their own minds), considering themselves 'sovereign citizens', even though most don't have the balls to actually renounce their citizenship in the USA.
Non- payment of well known, legal state and federal fees for use of state and federal property, and non-payment of taxes are NOT civil matters, they are criminal, as is failure to appear. Many of his supporters guarding the Bundy's from prosecution (hindering prosecution is a felony too) are the same ones that support the fed seizing property of those caught with a joint, so it's not about state rights or 'freedom', it's about standing with idiots that hate what you hate, namely "the negro" (one in particular).

I'm sure there are logical reasons for the tax that I'm not aware of. If there weren't though, I would ask why no rancher would be allowed to graze his or her cattle on unused land, tax-free.
In case my comment confused anyone on where I stood on my opinion of this guy: he's a piece of shit for his stubbornness, ego, and, now, racism. It was just the taxes for a perceived common resource that caused me to feel sympathy for the situation.

Just him or the thousands of other ranchers who respect the law, pay their taxes and grazing fees?