Out of Control

Friday, April 18, 2014
Article Tools
Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
iPod friendly
Share Article

Today, the federal government is out of control. Everywhere you look, it is intruding into our lives. And how is it accomplishing this? Through deceit and intimidation. Some examples include forcing an unworkable Obamacare on us, using the IRS to attack and silence opponents of its policies, marginalizing local andstate rights, destroying energy sectors in order to promote unworkable and unrealistic renewable energy policies, and using the EPA to control water (Delta smelt) and our food supply by getting rid of ranchers and cattle (Bundy Ranch-Nevada). On a governmental level, Obama is ignoring the Constitution, rewriting and making laws and weakening our military, whose job is to protect us.

When is enough enough, America? Our liberties, freedoms, and rights are being destroyed more each day. When will you stand up for what is right?


Independent Discussion Guidelines

keep frothing at the mouth, Don, everything's gonna be OK...those government mandates, ya know, most folks want them, or at least they want the green checks THEY're fighting that 47% Romney openly scorned so... fugeddabout your tired screed. And Obamacare: you're a month behind at least, Don, now over 8 million have signed up so...uh, any ideas of repeal are finished, see, most people like getting health insurance even with pre-existing conditions, and many millions more children have health insurance... try playing some golf, or TM, or tennis.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
April 18, 2014 at 6:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)

In a way you're right Dan. Many of the people have been bought off by government overexpansion. People have become so dependent on government money, government money in and of itself creates it's own constituency. According to the CBO, the ACA subsidizes leisure. After all, what could be more popular than the government paying people not to work or to work less? There's a great reason to vote Democrat right there. But as you know, the only problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.

Botany (anonymous profile)
April 18, 2014 at 8:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)

well, we'll never agree, but a SOCIAL DEMOCRACY, e.g. in the Federal Republic of Germany, agrees to redistribute some of the "extra" -- I know, you don't agree about "the extra". I regard access to health care as a fundamental human right, you do not.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
April 18, 2014 at 8:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)

And we don't redistribute wealth? We actually do, but of course not as much as you would like.

And sorry, I don't believe that someone has a fundamental human right to someone else's labor. By giving someone that right, you are obligating someone else to provide it.

Botany (anonymous profile)
April 18, 2014 at 9:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)

we certainly don't redistribute it like many EU countries! I never stated "that someone has a fundamental human right to someone else's labor." But there is the concept of the common good, and that "we all in this thing together" (OldCrowMedicineShow). You're simply in the higher group and want to hang on to as much as you can.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
April 18, 2014 at 9:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

People like bots get to have vacation because they make enough. Those of us on the lower section of the totem pole (supporting people like bots) don't get vacation. We're too busy working to pay the bills. So yes, I appreciate a lower health care cost that my work does not provide. I do agree with bots that addiction to government checks is a problem. The problem is that it's corporations like oil, GE, big banks that are the welfare queens, like that idiot rancher in arizona. If Bush was still in office, he'd probably have made an example out of him by now and the thorns and fox would have been cheering it on like gladiator sport. Bundy is the welfare queen. On a side note, have you heard the guy speak? Doubt he finished high school. I'm beginning to think that some people live life on this planet in another dimension. Can't figure out how they fall for the fiction every time.

spacey (anonymous profile)
April 18, 2014 at 1:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Chancellor Merkel famously stated that "Putin lives in another world", and she really meant it. Bots also lives in another, landlord, world and generally he's intent on keeping all his money as much as he can. He was vociferously against Prop 30, as an e.g. On another thread, DarNel called him "an idiot" which is cruel: Bots is simply very selfish and cares little about the common good, like foo.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
April 18, 2014 at 1:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

spacey that is ridiculous, Bundy's family has been grazing cattle on that land for over 130 years, the federal government has no right to that land at all. A person on welfare is somebody who doesn't provide any goods or services to the community and expects everything to be provided for them in return. People who grow and raise food are fundamentally important to all of our survival and your attitude that government has control over the land and not the people is the same attitude that gets farmers in third world countries booted off the land they have lived on for generations, then giving the land to giant corporations forcing the farmers to go into the city and work in sweatshops. The fact is the government needs to just give up most of the land they own so people can go live on it and raise crops if they choose. Bundy's have been at that location for 130 years, it belongs to him, period.

Second of all, I really hope you don't actually advocate the violent removal of Bundy and those defending him from his land. That is literally disgusting behavior that as I said corporations actively engage in developing countries to persuade the government to kick farmers off their land so they can give it to corporations in return for bribes. That is precisely what is going on here, they are stealing land from farmers to give it to corporations in exchange for bribes. Don't bother posting the debunking pieces posted on the internet about the Chinese energy company, those have already been debunked using government documents.

You really need to think harder about what you are advocating for. Giving the land to the government is the opposite of giving it to the people, giving it to the government = giving it to corporations. You need to stop worshiping the government so much because in the end you are just supporting and worshiping large corporations who control the government.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
April 18, 2014 at 2:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Having purchased that land with our tax dollars, we the people who comprise the government of the United States do indeed have a right to that land Mr. Bundy saw fit to graze his cattle on.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
April 18, 2014 at 2:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Spacey, I just wrote a big fat check to the IRS to support the drug habits of space cadets like yourself. I'm the one that works my tali off so others can sit around and get high all day and watch reruns of "I love Lucy".

Botany (anonymous profile)
April 18, 2014 at 2:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ken, that's precisely the problem, the government shouldn't be able to steal our tax dollars to "purchase" land that belongs to other people. This is exactly why the Zapatistas rose up, because the government claimed that the land they had been on for generations belonged to the government - so the government sold that land to corporations and kicked off the people who rightly owned it. That's exactly what is happening here.

You need to separate your definition of who owns the land from who the government says owns the land. The government is full of thugs.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
April 18, 2014 at 2:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

That is NOT exactly what is happening here at all. the boundaroes were set LONG ago! They've been accepted by other community members as being legitimate. Don't even associate the Zapatistas with that Neofascist Bundy. Commandante Ramona would've arrested Bundy by now!

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
April 18, 2014 at 3:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

What are you talking about?? This is all very simple, you keep complicating it with weird government jargon about boundaries being set (by WHO?) and been 'accepted' (by WHO?). What you actually mean is that the other ranchers have backed down and accepted tyranny and accepted that their land was stolen by the government because they were afraid of the monopoly force and violence behind government.

This is EXACTLY like the Zapatistas if you think about it in very simple terms - you settle some empty land, you live on that land, you ranch on land, it's your land!! The government can't come in after the fact and say they own it. Eminent domain is tyranny, eminent domain is fascism. That's exactly what happened to the Zapatistas, and the Mexican government had guaranteed they could continue farming their land in their old Constitution. The new treaty that the US made Mexico sign in 1992 with the passage of NAFTA which forced them to change their Constitution that said that the GOVERNMENT owned the land, at which point they could sell it cheap to corporations and the people who it belonged to got kicked off their land.

There is literally ZERO difference between the Zapatista situation and the Bundy situation. People live on land, government steals the land. Period. You can't manipulate and rationalize it any other way logically. It sounds like the media has taken some statements Bundy has made out of context because the media is corporate agenda driven and obviously not on the side of the Bundy's or the Zapatistas (coincidence??).

loonpt (anonymous profile)
April 18, 2014 at 3:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The government has owned that land since it was ceded by Mexico to the US in 1848. Bundy has been grazing his cattle without paying fees for twenty years. It is time to put his ass along with his militia friends in jail with the rest of the criminals.

Herschel_Greenspan (anonymous profile)
April 18, 2014 at 4:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

No Herschel that is incorrect.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
April 18, 2014 at 4:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sorry Loon but just like all of your goofy C/T crap you are 100% wrong. Let me quote: US 9th Circut Court Decision US v Gardner (another illegal squatter) :

"The claim by Gardners that it is the duty of the United States to hold public lands in trust for the formation of future states is founded on a case dealing with land acquired by the United States from the thirteen original states….. This decision was based on the terms of the cessions of the land from Virginia and Georgia to the United States. Before becoming a state, however, Nevada had no independent claim to sovereignty, unlike the original thirteen states. Therefore, the same reasoning is not applicable to this case, in which the federal government was the initial owner of the land from which the state of Nevada was later carved."

Stick to something you know about like chemtrails, bigfoot, and false flag operations.

Herschel_Greenspan (anonymous profile)
April 18, 2014 at 4:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The problem is that its too IN CONTROL which is paradise for lib-dems who know better than us how we should live our lives.

That's called Soft Tyranny and the left calls it "Doing the right thing".

realitycheck88 (anonymous profile)
April 18, 2014 at 6:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

yeah well the US empire uses "soft power" abroad to maintain power and influence, why wouldn't its twin masters [1% hyper-wealthy and lib-dem elitists] use soft tyranny at home? Like, you're surprised by this somehow, realitycheck88?? We always knew the Brave New World model with it's posthuman alliance with drugs and booze and video games would win out over the jack-booted 1984 police state version.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
April 18, 2014 at 6:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

There a 130 year difference betwen the zapatistas and the Bundy freeloader. The Mayans (Zapatistas) IMMEDIATELY protested and fought back against the corporate takeover of their lands.
If teh Bundy family had any issues 130 years ago was the time to voice them, not wait for an inbred relative to get a spur up his dysfunctioning anus and threaten the lives of others.
It is erroneous bordering on desperate to compare the two. I should know, I worked for a number of years on a project about teh Zapatistas some friends were helming.
In addition I've alwats studied right-0wing paramilitary groups. Bundy and his ilk are exactly the same types of thugs that were brought in to push the Mayans out of their homes.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
April 18, 2014 at 6:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Mr. Thorn: Since I know you read and post on these blogs, I would like to know why you only focus on Obama. Why do you not include the fact that the Republicans have been guilty as well of violating our rights and the Constitution?

billclausen (anonymous profile)
April 18, 2014 at 8:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thorn , knowing full well that the long simmering domestic crisis of health care provision needed drastic action , your last true American heroes Bush & Cheney chose to go to the other side of the world to invade Iraq. How did that work out? There was the opportunity for Republicans to make hay on that issue , when they had full majorities , yet they ( you) invented other priorities.
Please tell us how the IRS is "attacking and silencing" it's opponents. A few rouge audits ,a situation long since corrected , does not constitute the persecution you whimper about. Your beloved Tea Party is withering on the vine of its own volition -not because the Wizard of Oz is somehow pulling levers on you.
"Destroying energy sectors" ? What are you talking about? You do realize that the USA is at historic levels of domestic oil& gas production , right?
Hopefully you and your lovely wife will keep posting your opinions as they are quite entertaining and we all can use a good laugh once in a while. Oh .... and please note that you are not "silenced" and have the "freedom" to make fools of yourselves whenever you choose to do so.

geeber (anonymous profile)
April 19, 2014 at 4:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)

It is funny how some people are up in arms because they think a rancher should mooch off government property for nothing, while those same people are up in arms if people who pay into unemployment insurance actually claim unemployment insurance. They also support companies using private property for the Keystone Pipeline, but would hate it if government used their private property, although it is OK for them to use government property. They are also the same people who call Obama a socialist while yelling "keep government hands off their social security".

Like the OP, there are a lot of people driven by irrational, hypocritical ideology, and really don't know what they are talking about.

tabatha (anonymous profile)
April 19, 2014 at 6 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"John Shafer, who described himself as "a conservative Republican," told congressional investigators he flagged the first application for tax-exempt status from a Tea Party-aligned group that he and a lower-level agent came across in February 2010 because it was a new, high-profile issue.

Asked if the lower-level agent sought to elevate the case to Washington because he disagreed with Tea Party politics, Shafer said that was not the case.

"We never, never discussed any political, personal aspirations whatsoever," he said, according to a transcript of his testimony reviewed by Reuters on Tuesday."

Really and truly, it is important to read both sides of a story. Remember, there are always two sides to a story and the truth, and one is really cheating oneself to read just one side. By the way, to keep his false IRS narrative going, Issa suppressed the report that included the statements from the conservative republican who said that he started the searches. It was released by another member of the committee. Who is the liar here?

tabatha (anonymous profile)
April 19, 2014 at 6:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)

oh, poor Botany (and Don Thorn)...ooh, "I'm the one that works my tali [sic] off" -- TONS of people work very hard, and they don't get to do what Bundy is doing. Don, your inane comments are something like one of those prisoner's in Platos famous Cave [REPUBLIC Bk. VII] says, all happy in their dark delusions, who stick their heads out into the reality of the sun and spit out the ridiculous farrago of crap you started this off with. Dude, ANSWER Bill Clausen's pertinent question about your (and your spouse's) criticisms always and only focussing on Obama. Because he's smarter than you? Because he's black? Because he wants some health insurance relief for MILLIONS of less-well-off Americans [see spacey's comment]? Because he has tried to end stupid, expensive, losing wars -- he isn't weakening the US military you dunderhead, he's made it stronger by giving our guys some friggin' rest. Please attempt to write something coherent and intelligent, and NOT your same old BS. Or, as noted, try some mindful meditation or anything to calm down your America-hating self.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
April 19, 2014 at 7:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Mr. Thorn, we've read your letter and given input. Would you now be so kind as to read this article on salon and tell us if you still think the same way about the Bundy issue?

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
April 19, 2014 at 1:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yes, the US is at historic levels of gas + oil. However, it is on
private lands. The Obama administration has slowed + prevented
drilling on government owned land and is stalling the approval of the
Keystone pipeline. Furthermore, the coal industry is being destroyed
by Obama + company. In the mean time, our enemies are making
agreements for more energy. ( Russia-Chinia etc)
Also, all the far-left attack dogs for the SB Independent are
alive and well.

thethorns4 (anonymous profile)
April 19, 2014 at 2:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ignorant bigots like the Thorns are not interested in learning anything that conflicts with their warped world view.

Herschel_Greenspan (anonymous profile)
April 19, 2014 at 3:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Why do you support the Keystone Pipeline? It will go over private land on which it is not wanted? Yet you support Bundy destroying public (meaning your's and mine) propery for his own financial gain?
Do you see the contradiction?

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
April 19, 2014 at 3:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hey Thorn, where do you live? I have some cattle that I would like to have graze on your front lawn. I mean of you are not really using that lawn it would be best if my cattle eat your grass and crap all over it.

Herschel_Greenspan (anonymous profile)
April 19, 2014 at 3:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

yep, and all the far-right attack dogs for the nascent SB Tea-bagger coalition are alive and well-represented by Don the chorus of Thorns. Hey, did you read KV's Salon article? Are you open-minded? Did you manage a sentence or two, Don?

DrDan (anonymous profile)
April 19, 2014 at 5:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It might humor you to know Mr. Thorn that the Far left despises me just as much as the Far Right, so I don't think I really qualify as anyone's attack dog.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
April 19, 2014 at 6:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Bundy is breaking the law. Even conservatives can't escape that obvious conclusion:

EastBeach (anonymous profile)
April 19, 2014 at 6:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Mr. Thorn: In all fairness to you, I wasn't specific with my question so I will narrow it down: In 2011 The National Defense Authorization Act was passed into Federal Law, it clearly contradicts the 6th Amendment, and most Republicans (along with Obama, Capps, Feinstein, and Boxer) support this law. How do you respond to this?

billclausen (anonymous profile)
April 19, 2014 at 10:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It might humor you to know Mr. Thorn that the Far left despises me just as much as the Far Right, so I don't think I really qualify as anyone's attack dog.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
April 19, 2014 at 6:16 p.m.

You work for The Illuminati and the Bilderberg Group, and are a founding member of the Trilateral Commision. Your job is to destabilize the bloggersphere and cause people like Mr. Thorn to become mental.

dolphinpod14 (anonymous profile)
April 19, 2014 at 10:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"It might humor you to know Mr. Thorn that the Far left despises me just as much as the Far Right" Well Ken, as your unofficial guidence counselor I would say that a career in mainstream politics isn't for you.

I've been vilified by both the Left and Right as well. It's a good feeling.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
April 20, 2014 at 12:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Mr. Thorn , thanks for responding even though it was with even more opinion not based upon fact. The coal industry is not being "destroyed". In fact , coal investors are rubbing their hands together in eager anticipation of many decades of profiteering to come. Coal is going to continue to provide us with the lions share of our electrical generation needs far into the future . Contrary to your assertion that Obama is somehow " destroying" the industry , he has been advocating the advancement carbon sequestration technology. The application of that technology will become another profitable industry of itself, and allow us to keep using what we all know is dirty and harmful fuel.
Looking to the future , I suspect you will be able to replace "Obama" with "Hilary" as the source of all problems when composing your opinion pieces.

geeber (anonymous profile)
April 20, 2014 at 4:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I love how bots thinks he pays for me to get high and watch tv all day. Just another false narrative of those with money thinking that they are the ones paying for all these lavish items (big screen tv's, which are MUCH cheaper than the tubes used to be) that those of us on the lower income side of things have. Bots, just send me a check directly since the government never has. I pay for my hospital bills and my big screen oh and guess what? I work too. You actually think you buy these things for poor people? You are buying tanks and jeeps that sit out in abandoned parking lots. You are buying space in banks for oil companies to keep their money. We all are.

spacey (anonymous profile)
April 21, 2014 at 12:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I hope all of you government supporters in the Bundy situation realize the mineral deposits and military bases they want to build on that land will get us more tomahawk missiles and rocket fuel to kill more brown people overseas. "Our land" my a$$, the government is going to sell that land to corporations when it rightly belongs to the ranchers who have been there for generations. That land was promised to ranchers by the US government back before Nevada was a state and the ranchers could have claimed the land long before that but they didn't because all they wanted was the grazing rights. The federal government later illegally seized the land and more recently has un-elected bureaucrats changing the rules so they can get the cattle off the land and sell it. They don't even legally own it.

Tabatha, people who ranch and produce food for everybody using land that they have been on for over 100 years is the exact opposite of mooching. What a ridiculous statement.

Ken, I'm talking about the Zapatistas in 1992 when the US government forced Mexico to sign NAFTA and the Mexican government had to change their Constitution and kick the people off their land and the Zapatistas rose up against the Mexican Military. When they got word that the Mexican military would be backed by the US military the Zapatistas backed down.

This is EXACTLY the same scenario, there is literally not one single iota of difference between these two situations. When you settle land and begin farming or ranching, you don't have to buy it, it's yours. If somebody else wants the land they have to buy it, unless they are the government, then they can just take it from you.

Another smart man on the topic:

"In a state like Nevada, where 84 percent of the land is owned by the federal government, these types of conflicts are inevitable. Government ownership of land means that land is in theory owned by everyone, but in practice owned by no one. Thus, those who use the land lack the incentives to preserve it for the long term. As a result, land-use rules are set by politicians and bureaucrats. Oftentimes, the so-called “public” land is used in ways that benefit politically-powerful special interests."

loonpt (anonymous profile)
April 21, 2014 at 2 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You'll be happy to know that once again you've been misled Loon, that land is intended as a nature preserve that Bundy's cattle have been destroying. Not just the grasses and other flora, but crushing endangered turtles and other animals undernaeth their hooves as well.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
April 21, 2014 at 2:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Only the government is willing to spend over a million dollars to get a million dollars in fees...

So you think it is worth slaughtering hundreds of people over the desert tortoises on that land?

You are the one being mis-led, if you think this has ANYTHING to do with desert tortoises you are being naive to the nature of government and corruption. I got this information from somebody who actually gives guided tours of Bundy's land to federal and BLM agents. Much of the land is extremely rugged and difficult to access.. and the mineral deposits are THERE, there is no speculation about that. We invaded Afghanistan in part to build an oil pipeline, and now they are invading Bundy's ranch for mineral deposits, water tables and a strategic location for a military base. Get with the program, the government is owned and controlled by these corporations, stop falling for their bull$hit.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
April 21, 2014 at 3:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

When were hundreds of people slaughtered? Oh they weren't. Case closed.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
April 21, 2014 at 3:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If you want the feds to get the land it will requires slaughtering hundreds or maybe thousands of peaceful individuals.

So you think it is worth slaughtering hundreds or thousands of people over the desert tortoises on that land?

loonpt (anonymous profile)
April 21, 2014 at 4:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Why would they have to slaughter them? They can just pick them up and toss them back over the boundary line. Do you think it's worth "slaughtering" one person from BLM etc to prove Bundy is a man and not a thief?

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
April 21, 2014 at 4:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

How do you "pick up" thousands of people who are armed?

Aggression - The people at Bundy Ranch are not the aggressors, the feds are the aggressors.

Right now they are peaceful individuals on property that has been in the Bundy family since before the federal government existed there. The feds would have to aggress against these peaceful individuals to remove them.

You are using the same logic that was used to put Native Americans on reservations. The government "bought" giant parcels of land and then removed the people who lived there. Now, I don't believe the Native Americans owned the continent, we had every right to come and settle here and live among them peacefully or defend ourselves against their aggression, but we had no right to kill them on a massive scale or remove them from the lands that they lived on.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
April 21, 2014 at 4:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Maybe we should take all of Bundy's land and goive it back to the Native Americans vis a vis your rationale and pathetic defense of the armed aggresors at the Bundy Ranch.
Why do you side with every lunatic who comes down the pike? You've yet to meet a NeoFascist you didn't like yet your actual values are so opposite them...

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
April 21, 2014 at 5:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Everything the government does or enforces is predicated on violence.

Government = Violence

That doesn't mean all government is "bad", because violence is ok when using it in self defense and so if the government is defending somebody's rights or property then that is a moral and arguably valid use of government.

To continue with the Native American theme - Some people like to talk about how the Native Americans didn't believe in "owning land" and how they were living on such a higher plane than the rest of us....but this is really a misunderstanding. The Native Americans definitely had land that they would defend and no doubt if somebody offered them something valuable for it they may consider trading that land, heck, many tribes were moving around following the food sources anyway.

So what did they mean exactly, then? What they meant was that they didn't believe that some pretend invisible entity called "The Crown" in Europe or "The US Govt." over in DC could say, "What, what!! I own all of Oregon now! What you gonna do, fool?? Gangsta!!"

Meanwhile, in Oregon, huge populations of Native Americans were ALREADY living there and now the government just claims they own it?? That is what Native Americans were talking about when they said they didn't believe in "owning land". What they really meant is that they didn't believe that people could just come in and steal the land they were living on.

The Bundy's were ranching on that land before Nevada was a state, there is no moral, justifiable argument in the entire world that exists where you can some how insinuate that the federal government should own that land. There is no reason the federal government should own 84% of the land in Nevada either, that land belongs to the people, not the government.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
April 21, 2014 at 5:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Maybe we should take all of Bundy's land and goive it back to the Native Americans vis a vis your rationale and pathetic defense of the armed aggresors at the Bundy Ranch."

You keep missing the ENTIRE point. The point is if you settle land and you live on it, then YOU OWN IT. Period. Did the Bundy's steal the land from the Native Americans? Do you have ANY proof of that?? I don't believe the Native Americans were entitled to this continent, ONLY THE LAND THEY INHABITED AND FARMED ON.

The Bundy's inhabited and farmed that land for over 130 years, it is their land, PERIOD.

And you are the one supporting neo-fascists, that's all our current government today is. The corporations completely control it and you defend all of the neo-fascist corporations who control our government.

I'm supporting peaceful individuals who are growing food for puck's sakes!! You are supporting war, death and destruction by supporting our government, because that is all they do.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
April 21, 2014 at 5:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

They did not inhabit that land for 130 years.

(Turned autocorrect back on!)

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
April 21, 2014 at 5:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)


"The Bundy's inhabited and farmed that land for over 130 years, it is their land, PERIOD."

Then there should be some record of them paying property taxes. If not, they are squatters.

Tigershark (anonymous profile)
April 21, 2014 at 8:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I see that Don Thorn is really getting to you people. I guess one could say that he is "A thorn in your side".

dolphinpod14 (anonymous profile)
April 21, 2014 at 10:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I think this hits the nail on the head:

tabatha (anonymous profile)
April 21, 2014 at 11:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The Keystone pipeline is not:

- going to create many jobs
- going to provide gas to the US - it is merely being transported through the US to be sold on foreign markets

The US would be used by Canada with no benefit to the US. There are landowners who do not want their land used for the pipeline.

How about the states that are wanting to punish/fine people for using solar? Is that free market capitalism?

tabatha (anonymous profile)
April 21, 2014 at 11:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Anybody who wants to learn about the Bundy Ranch lands, ranges, mineral deposits and water tables, this video is highly informative and very much worth watching. I've been waiting to post it all day but it wasn't readily available:

lol, Tigershark, I'm an anarchist at heart. I'm ok with limited government as long as it protects people's rights and property, but extending beyond that is immoral, in my opinion. If I don't have the right to tell you what to do with your property that you settled and are farming or ranching on, then I don't have the right to hire armed thugs (aka the government) to tell you what to do with your property unless it is affecting me or my property (i.e. pollution, violence, coercive behavior, etc). I don't believe it is right to extort others who might not have children to pay for other people's children to go to school. That doesn't mean that if I didn't have children I might not decide to donate money towards educational institutions I deemed exemplary. It really means that I believe people should not be forced to pay for educational institutions that they may find immoral, degrading, soulless, pointless and a waste of money.

So basically, I don't care about a record of property taxes, they have been there for over 130 years grazing cattle on that land. There is no reason the government should own 84% of the land in Nevada, I think the government owning more than 5% of any land is absolutely draconian. So if they settled the land 5 years ago and have been grazing cattle I would still be on their side. Why would I ever support a corporate run violent mob, aka the US Government? Ken, you'll have to be more clear about what you mean because I know for a fact them and many others there had been grazing cattle there for generations, over 130 years.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
April 21, 2014 at 11:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ya I really like Jon Stewart, but the guy has writers and he can't always research everything, he is obviously very misinformed on this one. I've seen worse pass on the Colbert show before and that guy is pretty much a genius of sorts.

"How about the states that are wanting to punish/fine people for using solar? Is that free market capitalism?"

I really hope that question was not directed at me.. Can you answer it based on my last post? I'll give you a hint: Does putting up solar panels cause violence or theft against anybody else?

loonpt (anonymous profile)
April 21, 2014 at 11:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

loonpt (anonymous profile)
April 21, 2014 at 11:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I saw it on YouTube so it must be true.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
April 22, 2014 at 7:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Well considering almost everything the corporate run media says is a lie, the internet suddenly becomes ripe with the truth.

Did you even bother to watch it?

loonpt (anonymous profile)
April 22, 2014 at 10:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Nope. Sorry. Time is precious.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
April 22, 2014 at 11:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Nope. Sorry. Time is precious.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
April 22, 2014 at 11:23 a.m

dolphinpod14 (anonymous profile)
April 22, 2014 at 7 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well if you aren't willing to take the time to educate yourself on all sides about a topic, then it is best not to have a strong opinion on it.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
April 23, 2014 at 10:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Loon, logic and reasoning often save one the time from researching the ridiculous!

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
April 23, 2014 at 10:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I told you the video is made by the person primarily responsible for giving the federal government agents tours of the land they are trying to steal back to sell off and has been doing so for decades. If you think that is "ridiculous" and not worth looking at then your logic and reasoning meter is off. Everything you know about this incident is regurgitated crap from some media source, try learning from source material and people who actually use source material for a change and not corporate sponsored liars.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
April 23, 2014 at 12:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)


Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
April 23, 2014 at 12:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Loon, did you see the video of the Bundy peops dissing the Occupy Movement? Why don't you go educate the Bundys about that.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
April 23, 2014 at 1:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)


If it is his land, where are the tax bills and payments? Nevada law on adverse possession requires open and notorious occupation and payment of 5 years of taxes. Bundy is just a squatter refusing to pay the required fees to graze.

Tigershark (anonymous profile)
April 23, 2014 at 3:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ken I've spent countless hours attempting to educate people on the right about the good intentions and valid concerns of the occupy movement just as I've spent countless hours attempting to educate people on the left about the good intentions and valid concerns held by many in the liberty movement and to a lesser extent the 'tea party' (whatever that is). The fact is we are talking about groups and not individuals, and beliefs and ideas will vary as you cross different subsections of these groups. You are talking about individuals and applying their beliefs to a group just as many of them do with occupy protesters and my goal, as a mitigator and believer in many aspects of both groups is to help clear up the misconceptions both groups have about each other.

Yesterday the mainstream press released a story that the Burning Man organizer was planning to hold a #bundyfest on the govt. land next to Bundy's ranch the week after burning man, 'nudity allowed and gays welcome'. The reason this was attributed to the organizer of burning man was because the guy said on his facebook page that they pay the Nevada govt. fees to hold burning man out in black rock city (to party their asses off for a week as opposed to farming/ranching) and I am not sure why he used the wording that he did because now it has come out that the guy is NOT the organizer of burning man and has never even been to burning man (although he said he would like to go, maybe this year? lol..).. Most burners I know would support bundy, because burning man was originally a communal anarchist gathering with no $ and a gift/trade economy where anything goes as long as you don't hurt anybody.. these people are for the most part not government worshippers, they are real hippies.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
April 23, 2014 at 3:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)


You are a squatter in your own house because you have not paid your $12,700 in fees to me that I have just arbitrarily decided to charge you.

That is pretty much what I hear you saying about Bundy.

The Bundy family and other ranchers have been grazing on that land for generations, for over 130 years, since before Nevada was even a state. That was the agreement when they moved there, that they would be able to graze their cattle on the land indefinitely. The government should never have betrayed their original agreement or they should pay the ranchers a hefty sum that the ranchers agree to in order to close down their ranches and allow the government to sell the land. The government has arbitrarily made new rules and increased their fees to the point where it became cost prohibitive to graze cattle and the rest of the ranchers slowly gave up, fearing a violent attack by federal agents. Bundy held out because he knew it is the right thing to do.

It makes me a feel ill inside to see people disrespect the people in this country who provide us with the food and sustenance that we eat each and to call them 'squatters' or 'moochers' when these people are hard workers and we really should be infinitely grateful to them for providing our most basic need in life. Not to mention, we don't need more military bases, tomahawk missiles and rocket fuel, and that is what this is really all about. The corporate media loves to trick people into thinking issues like this are over some stupid thing like a desert tortoise.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
April 23, 2014 at 4 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I bet the desert tortoise doesn't think it's a "stupid thing."

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
April 23, 2014 at 4:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Loon you are all about property rights. The US owns that land and was renting the grazing rights. Bundy did not pay so he should have his free loading ass evicted like any tenant that fails to pay rent . Stop paying the rent on your place and see what the landlord does. Oh and by the way stop it with the crap about the Feds taking the land. They have owned it long before the Bundy squatters started running their cattle in Nevada

Herschel_Greenspan (anonymous profile)
April 23, 2014 at 4:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ken, I'll bet the desert tortoise doesn't really give a crap about cows in fact if they knew better they would be praying for the cows to stay and help protect their land because they are going to be pissed when the feds sell the land off and they start mining it and building military bases.

Hershel, you are right, I believe in property rights. I believe that people who settle land and farm and graze on the land own it. Back in the 1800s the government was trying to get people to move out west by promising that there was free open land to go and graze cattle and farm food. So people went out there and did that, in this case before Nevada was even a state. The fact is the government shouldn't own that land in the first place at all, it should belong to the Bundy's and the other ranchers who settled in that area. On top of that, the feds actually took control of that land from Nevada illegally so your post is factually incorrect.

I'm an anarchist, so I don't really believe in government unless it is acting in a just manner by protecting individual's rights and property. The fact that the federal government owns 84% of Nevada makes my stomach turn, there is no reason for that at all. That land should belong to the people who decide to care after it and use it.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
April 23, 2014 at 5:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)


The Bundy family may not have been there 130 years.

He either owes taxes or rent on that property. He seems to think he should pay neither.

Tigershark (anonymous profile)
April 23, 2014 at 6:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

So now that Bundy has revealed himself as an ignorant racist* as well as a freeloader, do Thorn and LoonPt still support him?

* I told you so.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
April 24, 2014 at 10:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Did Bundy reveal himself as an 'ignorant racist' or did the NYT reveal him as an 'ignorant racist'? Did you hear him make the statements himself or did you read them on the internet? Bundy is claiming that the NYT slandered him in their remarks and statements attributed to him, do you have actual video or audio of his statements or are we again taking the world of the mainstream media?

However IF his statements were accurate as stated, it still doesn't even make him racist. And even if he is a racist it still doesn't give anybody a right to take their property, it's called the first amendment, remember that one? But the fact is he didn't say he agreed that slavery was ok. What he said was that welfare is a form of slavery for both most of those who receive it and those who provide it. Welfare itself creates, increases and perpetuates a cycle of poverty for groups who receive it and those who provide it are also enslaved. Certainly there are exceptions, such as the elderly and those with disabilities.. but we are talking about generational cycles of poverty caused by welfare. So I could see how the issue could be debated, and although I certainly don't like the idea of a direct slave/master/whip relationship and find it morally reprehensible, as does Bundy, if I don't give over my slavery % I get a SWAT team showing up at my house. Other than the fact that they let me have half and the plantation is much bigger, is that really much better in a moral sense?

loonpt (anonymous profile)
April 24, 2014 at 11:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)

What do unfounded slurs about "white privilege" make someone?

foofighter (anonymous profile)
April 24, 2014 at 11:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)

its on video on politico loon. check it out once you have finished your troll patrol.

lawdy (anonymous profile)
April 24, 2014 at 1:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Two-timing Federal Government...

"Nevada rancher and former Shoshone chief's range war with BLM predates Bundy standoff

While Bundy is defying the federal agency over fees for grazing cattle on government-owned land, Yowell's cattle had roamed reservation land. But a 1979 Supreme Court decision held that even land designated for Indian reservations is held in trust for them, and thus subject to BLM regulation.
Yowell said he sees some “commonality” between his fight and Bundy’s, but stressed his claim to the land is further strengthened by the Treaty of Ruby Valley of 1863, which formally recognized Western Shoshone rights to some 60 million acres in Nevada, Idaho, Utah and California. In 1979, however, the Supreme Court ruled that the treaty gave the government trusteeship over tribal lands and could eventually claim them as “public” or federal land."

loonpt (anonymous profile)
April 24, 2014 at 2:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It definitely looks like government subsidies have led Bundy to a life of violence and crime. He would've been better off as a rower on a Roman slave ship.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
April 24, 2014 at 2:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Do you have any evidence that Bundy has ever been violent or committed a (real) crime?

Bundy has a very large family that he has raised and supported and beyond that has helped support millions of people with healthful food and sustenance, anybody who disrespects the work he has done should try going a week without eating. Or alternately try and produce your own food for a few months.

Bundy is the opposite of a slave, and he has NEVER received any government subsidies. That land belongs to him and others who were forced off it, to insinuate it belongs to the government means that you believe that the government has the right to steal land that belongs to other people who farm and graze on that land and that is anti-humanity. Food is central to our survival, and those who grow it should be very well respected in our society. Disrespecting those who produce our food is very anti-humanity, about as anti-humanity as it gets.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
April 24, 2014 at 3:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The agenda of the media should be very clear here. They are twisting and turning and manipulating the story any way they can to make Bundy and his supporters look racist rednecks and bad people so that when they go in to steal their land and slaughter them, the general population will be able to rationalize the murders more easily and write them off as crazy.

This is sort of like Waco where you had a federal government bent on building the NAFTA superhighway through Texas, but they had all these pesky private lands in the way including what they figured out would be the most difficult, the Davidian compound. So they sent in a single federal agent to go in under cover and without any evidence or corroboration made all sorts of accusations about molesting children and numerous other lies to make people think that this group was nothing more than a bunch of child molesting crazy cultists. Once the media demonization was complete, the US military went in and slaughtered dozens of innocent women and children and blamed the fire on the Davidians. Of course, there are plenty of documentaries out there showing the US military inserting explosive materials and lighting fires in the house, but nobody really cares that the government lied because these people are all nuts.

Were the Davidians crazy? Maybe a bit, but not as crazy as the psychopaths in the government and the media and everybody who cheered on their slaughter.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
April 24, 2014 at 4:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yes the Davidians we're nuts. And you also know darn well if the mainstream media reportedl favorably of Bundy you'd be against him - fess up, you know it's true bro!
If CNN said Bush was responsible for 9-11 you'd blame Al-Qaeda; if NBC blamed the CIA for Sandy Hook you'd blame the shooter.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
April 24, 2014 at 6:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

PS. Nobody "cheered the slaughter" of the Davidians. Show me the throngs arriving with marshmallows and hot dogs on sticks, uncorking bottles of champagne, and shooting off firecrackers. You can't because there were none.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
April 24, 2014 at 7:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

loonpt (anonymous profile)
April 24, 2014 at 8:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Round and 'round and around we go; where this thread's headed, nobody knows!

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
April 24, 2014 at 9:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

loonpt (anonymous profile)
April 24, 2014 at 9:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Maybe they were referring to the Dravidians.

dolphinpod14 (anonymous profile)
April 24, 2014 at 9:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Or maybe this is all connected to the mysterious activity on San Miguel Island:

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
April 24, 2014 at 10:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

event calendar sponsored by: