Total Posts:57|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Filthy Racist Pig Cliven Bundy

monty1
Posts: 1,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2014 12:19:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
http://www.slate.com...

'The Only Difference Between Bundy And A Host Of Conservatives Is That He Isn't Sophisticated Enough To Couch His Nonsense In Soundbites And Euphemism'...

Hannity jumped ship but the teabaggers won't. They've got themselves another good ol boy amurican heeero!
monty1
Posts: 1,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2014 1:01:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Cooommmmmme Baaacccckkkk Bundy supporters, cooooommmmeeeee baaaacccckkkkk. Last chance to demonstrate you have real balls or you've been socially and politically castrated by Bundy's big fukkk up!
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2014 2:55:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/25/2014 1:01:42 PM, monty1 wrote:
Cooommmmmme Baaacccckkkk Bundy supporters, cooooommmmeeeee baaaacccckkkkk. Last chance to demonstrate you have real balls or you've been socially and politically castrated by Bundy's big fukkk up!

Most people supported his actions not his belief system. I still support his standing up to the feds but obviously not his antiquated stance on race.
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2014 3:05:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/25/2014 2:55:54 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 4/25/2014 1:01:42 PM, monty1 wrote:
Cooommmmmme Baaacccckkkk Bundy supporters, cooooommmmeeeee baaaacccckkkkk. Last chance to demonstrate you have real balls or you've been socially and politically castrated by Bundy's big fukkk up!

Most people supported his actions not his belief system. I still support his standing up to the feds but obviously not his antiquated stance on race.

What do you mean by "standing up to the Feds"? Didn't he refuse to pay grazing fees, but let his herd roam on public, taxpayer-funded land?

It's one thing to say that the fees shouldn't exist or the land should be privatized, but we're dealing with someone who broke a law that was already on the books. And, no, that doesn't implicate that all laws on the books are just, but I know that you're too smart to fire back with a reductio ad absurdum to the tune of "how about slavery?" so I shouldn't worry.
Jifpop09
Posts: 2,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2014 3:37:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Really Conservative? He broke the law and aimed a gun at someone who was enforcing it. Shows that people value illegal grazing more then the life of our officers
Leader of the DDO Revolution Party
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2014 4:05:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/25/2014 3:37:48 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
Really Conservative? He broke the law and aimed a gun at someone who was enforcing it. Shows that people value illegal grazing more then the life of our officers

He refused to pay BS "fees" on land his family has been grazing on since the 1850s. Its land nobody wants and the BLM just wanted to make a quick buck by charging "grazing fees". They didn't plant the scrub grass and bushes, they didn't even look twice at them. The reason why the fees got so expensive was because of some stupid desert tortoise that lives there and he said he wasn't going to pay additional fees because of some stupid tortoise. I agree with that.
Jifpop09
Posts: 2,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2014 4:08:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/25/2014 4:05:02 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 4/25/2014 3:37:48 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
Really Conservative? He broke the law and aimed a gun at someone who was enforcing it. Shows that people value illegal grazing more then the life of our officers

He refused to pay BS "fees" on land his family has been grazing on since the 1850s. Its land nobody wants and the BLM just wanted to make a quick buck by charging "grazing fees". They didn't plant the scrub grass and bushes, they didn't even look twice at them. The reason why the fees got so expensive was because of some stupid desert tortoise that lives there and he said he wasn't going to pay additional fees because of some stupid tortoise. I agree with that.

So its up to random ranchers to determine the laws? If he wanted to graze the land, he should of bought it like a non freeloading citizen. That's like me saying I wont pay my property tax, because my families been living there 87 years.

Its idiotic, and no justification can be given for pointing a rifle at one of our government workers, who were just doing their job. If this is as close minded as it gets, then it makes me like the GOP even less
Leader of the DDO Revolution Party
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2014 4:09:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/25/2014 3:05:10 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/25/2014 2:55:54 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 4/25/2014 1:01:42 PM, monty1 wrote:
Cooommmmmme Baaacccckkkk Bundy supporters, cooooommmmeeeee baaaacccckkkkk. Last chance to demonstrate you have real balls or you've been socially and politically castrated by Bundy's big fukkk up!

Most people supported his actions not his belief system. I still support his standing up to the feds but obviously not his antiquated stance on race.

What do you mean by "standing up to the Feds"? Didn't he refuse to pay grazing fees, but let his herd roam on public, taxpayer-funded land?

It's one thing to say that the fees shouldn't exist or the land should be privatized, but we're dealing with someone who broke a law that was already on the books. And, no, that doesn't implicate that all laws on the books are just, but I know that you're too smart to fire back with a reductio ad absurdum to the tune of "how about slavery?" so I shouldn't worry.

How is empty arid land "taxpayer-funded"? There's no cost to keeping it. And since it's owned by the gov't there's not even taxes on it...

Also, since when do progressives give two flips about the taxpayer?
Jifpop09
Posts: 2,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2014 4:10:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/25/2014 4:05:02 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 4/25/2014 3:37:48 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
Really Conservative? He broke the law and aimed a gun at someone who was enforcing it. Shows that people value illegal grazing more then the life of our officers

He refused to pay BS "fees" on land his family has been grazing on since the 1850s. Its land nobody wants and the BLM just wanted to make a quick buck by charging "grazing fees". They didn't plant the scrub grass and bushes, they didn't even look twice at them. The reason why the fees got so expensive was because of some stupid desert tortoise that lives there and he said he wasn't going to pay additional fees because of some stupid tortoise. I agree with that.

Oh, and don't think my comment gets you off the hook for progressives....

What do you mean by "standing up to the Feds"? Didn't he refuse to pay grazing fees, but let his herd roam on public, taxpayer-funded land?

It's one thing to say that the fees shouldn't exist or the land should be privatized, but we're dealing with someone who broke a law that was already on the books. And, no, that doesn't implicate that all laws on the books are just, but I know that you're too smart to fire back with a reductio ad absurdum to the tune of "how about slavery?" so I shouldn't worry.
Leader of the DDO Revolution Party
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2014 4:10:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/25/2014 4:08:53 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/25/2014 4:05:02 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 4/25/2014 3:37:48 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
Really Conservative? He broke the law and aimed a gun at someone who was enforcing it. Shows that people value illegal grazing more then the life of our officers

He refused to pay BS "fees" on land his family has been grazing on since the 1850s. Its land nobody wants and the BLM just wanted to make a quick buck by charging "grazing fees". They didn't plant the scrub grass and bushes, they didn't even look twice at them. The reason why the fees got so expensive was because of some stupid desert tortoise that lives there and he said he wasn't going to pay additional fees because of some stupid tortoise. I agree with that.

So its up to random ranchers to determine the laws? If he wanted to graze the land, he should of bought it like a non freeloading citizen. That's like me saying I wont pay my property tax, because my families been living there 87 years.

Its idiotic, and no justification can be given for pointing a rifle at one of our government workers, who were just doing their job. If this is as close minded as it gets, then it makes me like the GOP even less

They only pulled guns because the BLM showed up armed first.

Second, the feds won't sell the land to anyone. They claimed it when Nevada became a state and won't sell to anyone. People need to graze the nations livestock somewhere.

They jacked the fees up for some stupid environmentalist lobby group. Do you like cheap beef or not?
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2014 4:11:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/25/2014 4:10:14 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/25/2014 4:05:02 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 4/25/2014 3:37:48 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
Really Conservative? He broke the law and aimed a gun at someone who was enforcing it. Shows that people value illegal grazing more then the life of our officers

He refused to pay BS "fees" on land his family has been grazing on since the 1850s. Its land nobody wants and the BLM just wanted to make a quick buck by charging "grazing fees". They didn't plant the scrub grass and bushes, they didn't even look twice at them. The reason why the fees got so expensive was because of some stupid desert tortoise that lives there and he said he wasn't going to pay additional fees because of some stupid tortoise. I agree with that.

Oh, and don't think my comment gets you off the hook for progressives....

What do you mean by "standing up to the Feds"? Didn't he refuse to pay grazing fees, but let his herd roam on public, taxpayer-funded land?

It's one thing to say that the fees shouldn't exist or the land should be privatized, but we're dealing with someone who broke a law that was already on the books. And, no, that doesn't implicate that all laws on the books are just, but I know that you're too smart to fire back with a reductio ad absurdum to the tune of "how about slavery?" so I shouldn't worry.


^ Already responded.
Jifpop09
Posts: 2,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2014 4:17:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/25/2014 4:10:55 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 4/25/2014 4:08:53 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/25/2014 4:05:02 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 4/25/2014 3:37:48 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
Really Conservative? He broke the law and aimed a gun at someone who was enforcing it. Shows that people value illegal grazing more then the life of our officers

He refused to pay BS "fees" on land his family has been grazing on since the 1850s. Its land nobody wants and the BLM just wanted to make a quick buck by charging "grazing fees". They didn't plant the scrub grass and bushes, they didn't even look twice at them. The reason why the fees got so expensive was because of some stupid desert tortoise that lives there and he said he wasn't going to pay additional fees because of some stupid tortoise. I agree with that.

So its up to random ranchers to determine the laws? If he wanted to graze the land, he should of bought it like a non freeloading citizen. That's like me saying I wont pay my property tax, because my families been living there 87 years.

Its idiotic, and no justification can be given for pointing a rifle at one of our government workers, who were just doing their job. If this is as close minded as it gets, then it makes me like the GOP even less

They only pulled guns because the BLM showed up armed first.

What, so the cops should of showed up unarmed? considering the millitia had rifles, I would of called them foolish if they didn't.

Second, the feds won't sell the land to anyone. They claimed it when Nevada became a state and won't sell to anyone. People need to graze the nations livestock somewhere.

. It doesn't matter if they don't sell. They own the land. Its the exact same thing as if someone was running a business on your property. Your not going to do it for free, or should the government. We need taxes. This GOP joke of pretending we don't is silly.

They jacked the fees up for some stupid environmentalist lobby group. Do you like cheap beef or not?

^ Same as above. You change the law democratically. Not through militancy.
Leader of the DDO Revolution Party
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2014 4:19:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/25/2014 4:17:07 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/25/2014 4:10:55 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 4/25/2014 4:08:53 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/25/2014 4:05:02 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 4/25/2014 3:37:48 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
Really Conservative? He broke the law and aimed a gun at someone who was enforcing it. Shows that people value illegal grazing more then the life of our officers

He refused to pay BS "fees" on land his family has been grazing on since the 1850s. Its land nobody wants and the BLM just wanted to make a quick buck by charging "grazing fees". They didn't plant the scrub grass and bushes, they didn't even look twice at them. The reason why the fees got so expensive was because of some stupid desert tortoise that lives there and he said he wasn't going to pay additional fees because of some stupid tortoise. I agree with that.

So its up to random ranchers to determine the laws? If he wanted to graze the land, he should of bought it like a non freeloading citizen. That's like me saying I wont pay my property tax, because my families been living there 87 years.

Its idiotic, and no justification can be given for pointing a rifle at one of our government workers, who were just doing their job. If this is as close minded as it gets, then it makes me like the GOP even less

They only pulled guns because the BLM showed up armed first.

What, so the cops should of showed up unarmed? considering the millitia had rifles, I would of called them foolish if they didn't.

Second, the feds won't sell the land to anyone. They claimed it when Nevada became a state and won't sell to anyone. People need to graze the nations livestock somewhere.

. It doesn't matter if they don't sell. They own the land. Its the exact same thing as if someone was running a business on your property. Your not going to do it for free, or should the government. We need taxes. This GOP joke of pretending we don't is silly.

They jacked the fees up for some stupid environmentalist lobby group. Do you like cheap beef or not?

^ Same as above. You change the law democratically. Not through militancy.

I know, on the books he's wrong. I know you shouldn't point guns at federal agents. I know the fed owns the land.

I still can't stand the government though. Legally, hes wrong. But I still support the idea of sticking it to the fed. This country is broken and honestly, it probably needs to be split into 3-4 separate countries.
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2014 4:22:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/25/2014 4:09:31 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 4/25/2014 3:05:10 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/25/2014 2:55:54 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 4/25/2014 1:01:42 PM, monty1 wrote:
Cooommmmmme Baaacccckkkk Bundy supporters, cooooommmmeeeee baaaacccckkkkk. Last chance to demonstrate you have real balls or you've been socially and politically castrated by Bundy's big fukkk up!

Most people supported his actions not his belief system. I still support his standing up to the feds but obviously not his antiquated stance on race.

What do you mean by "standing up to the Feds"? Didn't he refuse to pay grazing fees, but let his herd roam on public, taxpayer-funded land?

It's one thing to say that the fees shouldn't exist or the land should be privatized, but we're dealing with someone who broke a law that was already on the books. And, no, that doesn't implicate that all laws on the books are just, but I know that you're too smart to fire back with a reductio ad absurdum to the tune of "how about slavery?" so I shouldn't worry.

How is empty arid land "taxpayer-funded"? There's no cost to keeping it. And since it's owned by the gov't there's not even taxes on it...

Also, since when do progressives give two flips about the taxpayer?

There are costs to maintaining, as minuscule as they admittedly were, but that isn't the point. There were grazing fees which he dodged. By all means, oppose the fees, but it's a bit hard to support the guy after he broke the law.

And come on, you know that's a strawman. Of course I care about the taxpayer. In fact, I care about them so much that I voted -- or would have voted -- against Mitt Romney because his plan involved raising taxes on people who couldn't afford it to give a $250,000 tax break to people who could.
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2014 4:24:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/25/2014 4:22:00 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/25/2014 4:09:31 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 4/25/2014 3:05:10 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/25/2014 2:55:54 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 4/25/2014 1:01:42 PM, monty1 wrote:
Cooommmmmme Baaacccckkkk Bundy supporters, cooooommmmeeeee baaaacccckkkkk. Last chance to demonstrate you have real balls or you've been socially and politically castrated by Bundy's big fukkk up!

Most people supported his actions not his belief system. I still support his standing up to the feds but obviously not his antiquated stance on race.

What do you mean by "standing up to the Feds"? Didn't he refuse to pay grazing fees, but let his herd roam on public, taxpayer-funded land?

It's one thing to say that the fees shouldn't exist or the land should be privatized, but we're dealing with someone who broke a law that was already on the books. And, no, that doesn't implicate that all laws on the books are just, but I know that you're too smart to fire back with a reductio ad absurdum to the tune of "how about slavery?" so I shouldn't worry.

How is empty arid land "taxpayer-funded"? There's no cost to keeping it. And since it's owned by the gov't there's not even taxes on it...

Also, since when do progressives give two flips about the taxpayer?


There are costs to maintaining, as minuscule as they admittedly were, but that isn't the point. There were grazing fees which he dodged. By all means, oppose the fees, but it's a bit hard to support the guy after he broke the law.

And come on, you know that's a strawman. Of course I care about the taxpayer. In fact, I care about them so much that I voted -- or would have voted -- against Mitt Romney because his plan involved raising taxes on people who couldn't afford it to give a $250,000 tax break to people who could.

Mitt Romney was not going to raise taxes. How about Obama who hauled in the highest revenue EVER this year from taxes and has removed the American middle class from its position as richest in the world? All while throwing parties for the children of the richest people in the country?

http://www.nytimes.com...
http://www.metro.us...
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2014 4:44:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/25/2014 4:24:54 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 4/25/2014 4:22:00 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/25/2014 4:09:31 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 4/25/2014 3:05:10 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/25/2014 2:55:54 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 4/25/2014 1:01:42 PM, monty1 wrote:
Cooommmmmme Baaacccckkkk Bundy supporters, cooooommmmeeeee baaaacccckkkkk. Last chance to demonstrate you have real balls or you've been socially and politically castrated by Bundy's big fukkk up!

Most people supported his actions not his belief system. I still support his standing up to the feds but obviously not his antiquated stance on race.

What do you mean by "standing up to the Feds"? Didn't he refuse to pay grazing fees, but let his herd roam on public, taxpayer-funded land?

It's one thing to say that the fees shouldn't exist or the land should be privatized, but we're dealing with someone who broke a law that was already on the books. And, no, that doesn't implicate that all laws on the books are just, but I know that you're too smart to fire back with a reductio ad absurdum to the tune of "how about slavery?" so I shouldn't worry.

How is empty arid land "taxpayer-funded"? There's no cost to keeping it. And since it's owned by the gov't there's not even taxes on it...

Also, since when do progressives give two flips about the taxpayer?


There are costs to maintaining, as minuscule as they admittedly were, but that isn't the point. There were grazing fees which he dodged. By all means, oppose the fees, but it's a bit hard to support the guy after he broke the law.

And come on, you know that's a strawman. Of course I care about the taxpayer. In fact, I care about them so much that I voted -- or would have voted -- against Mitt Romney because his plan involved raising taxes on people who couldn't afford it to give a $250,000 tax break to people who could.

Mitt Romney was not going to raise taxes. How about Obama who hauled in the highest revenue EVER this year from taxes and has removed the American middle class from its position as richest in the world? All while throwing parties for the children of the richest people in the country?

http://www.nytimes.com...
http://www.metro.us...

It depends on how you look at Mitt's tax plan -- and, mind you, he never did tell us which loopholes he wanted to close. Either he raised taxes on the middle class, or he increased the deficit. He cited one study that said that his plan worked, and even in that plan, charitable deductions were capped out, which did amount to a giant tax increase on the middle class.

As for the next point: I could be snide and say, "since when do conservatives care about the middle class?" but I won't.

You're right. The middle class is doing awful right now. But that's hardly because of X Obama policy or Y Keynesian idea. Obama by all accounts has been a mediocre president, but it was GOP policy that perpetuated the stagnation of the middle class, beginning in the 1980s with flat-lining median wages in spite of the fact that workers were twice as productive. So, yes, Obama bears some blame for not doing enough to alleviate middle class suffering, but the policies you would want are what induced it in the first place. It's not as though cutting taxes for the rich is going to life the middle class. We've heard that narrative before; it's never happened.

As for the other point of "throwing parties for the richest kids in America": He's doing that? I didn't know that, and I don't really care enough about this to actually dig through the links -- I know one is on the stagnating middle class, which you were right to point out. If that's true, I guess I'm indifferent. I mean, I don't think it's right that rich people are doing well on the backs of the middle class, sure. But isn't he just acting as presidents before him did? I've even seen people attack him for taking vacations, though he never came close to Bush Jr. or Reagan.
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2014 4:44:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
"I'll have those n*ggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years."

-President Lyndon Johnson (D)

All LBJ supporters are filthy racist pigs.
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2014 4:48:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/25/2014 4:44:38 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/25/2014 4:24:54 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 4/25/2014 4:22:00 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/25/2014 4:09:31 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 4/25/2014 3:05:10 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/25/2014 2:55:54 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 4/25/2014 1:01:42 PM, monty1 wrote:
Cooommmmmme Baaacccckkkk Bundy supporters, cooooommmmeeeee baaaacccckkkkk. Last chance to demonstrate you have real balls or you've been socially and politically castrated by Bundy's big fukkk up!

Most people supported his actions not his belief system. I still support his standing up to the feds but obviously not his antiquated stance on race.

What do you mean by "standing up to the Feds"? Didn't he refuse to pay grazing fees, but let his herd roam on public, taxpayer-funded land?

It's one thing to say that the fees shouldn't exist or the land should be privatized, but we're dealing with someone who broke a law that was already on the books. And, no, that doesn't implicate that all laws on the books are just, but I know that you're too smart to fire back with a reductio ad absurdum to the tune of "how about slavery?" so I shouldn't worry.

How is empty arid land "taxpayer-funded"? There's no cost to keeping it. And since it's owned by the gov't there's not even taxes on it...

Also, since when do progressives give two flips about the taxpayer?


There are costs to maintaining, as minuscule as they admittedly were, but that isn't the point. There were grazing fees which he dodged. By all means, oppose the fees, but it's a bit hard to support the guy after he broke the law.

And come on, you know that's a strawman. Of course I care about the taxpayer. In fact, I care about them so much that I voted -- or would have voted -- against Mitt Romney because his plan involved raising taxes on people who couldn't afford it to give a $250,000 tax break to people who could.

Mitt Romney was not going to raise taxes. How about Obama who hauled in the highest revenue EVER this year from taxes and has removed the American middle class from its position as richest in the world? All while throwing parties for the children of the richest people in the country?

http://www.nytimes.com...
http://www.metro.us...


It depends on how you look at Mitt's tax plan -- and, mind you, he never did tell us which loopholes he wanted to close. Either he raised taxes on the middle class, or he increased the deficit. He cited one study that said that his plan worked, and even in that plan, charitable deductions were capped out, which did amount to a giant tax increase on the middle class.

As for the next point: I could be snide and say, "since when do conservatives care about the middle class?" but I won't.

You're right. The middle class is doing awful right now. But that's hardly because of X Obama policy or Y Keynesian idea. Obama by all accounts has been a mediocre president, but it was GOP policy that perpetuated the stagnation of the middle class, beginning in the 1980s with flat-lining median wages in spite of the fact that workers were twice as productive. So, yes, Obama bears some blame for not doing enough to alleviate middle class suffering, but the policies you would want are what induced it in the first place. It's not as though cutting taxes for the rich is going to life the middle class. We've heard that narrative before; it's never happened.

As for the other point of "throwing parties for the richest kids in America": He's doing that? I didn't know that, and I don't really care enough about this to actually dig through the links -- I know one is on the stagnating middle class, which you were right to point out. If that's true, I guess I'm indifferent. I mean, I don't think it's right that rich people are doing well on the backs of the middle class, sure. But isn't he just acting as presidents before him did? I've even seen people attack him for taking vacations, though he never came close to Bush Jr. or Reagan.

Bleh both parties have honestly been garbage for a long time. They keep picking "electable" people or people who are "next in line" rather than good leaders.

We need a leader right now.
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2014 4:51:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/25/2014 4:48:06 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 4/25/2014 4:44:38 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/25/2014 4:24:54 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 4/25/2014 4:22:00 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/25/2014 4:09:31 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 4/25/2014 3:05:10 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/25/2014 2:55:54 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 4/25/2014 1:01:42 PM, monty1 wrote:
Cooommmmmme Baaacccckkkk Bundy supporters, cooooommmmeeeee baaaacccckkkkk. Last chance to demonstrate you have real balls or you've been socially and politically castrated by Bundy's big fukkk up!

Most people supported his actions not his belief system. I still support his standing up to the feds but obviously not his antiquated stance on race.

What do you mean by "standing up to the Feds"? Didn't he refuse to pay grazing fees, but let his herd roam on public, taxpayer-funded land?

It's one thing to say that the fees shouldn't exist or the land should be privatized, but we're dealing with someone who broke a law that was already on the books. And, no, that doesn't implicate that all laws on the books are just, but I know that you're too smart to fire back with a reductio ad absurdum to the tune of "how about slavery?" so I shouldn't worry.

How is empty arid land "taxpayer-funded"? There's no cost to keeping it. And since it's owned by the gov't there's not even taxes on it...

Also, since when do progressives give two flips about the taxpayer?


There are costs to maintaining, as minuscule as they admittedly were, but that isn't the point. There were grazing fees which he dodged. By all means, oppose the fees, but it's a bit hard to support the guy after he broke the law.

And come on, you know that's a strawman. Of course I care about the taxpayer. In fact, I care about them so much that I voted -- or would have voted -- against Mitt Romney because his plan involved raising taxes on people who couldn't afford it to give a $250,000 tax break to people who could.

Mitt Romney was not going to raise taxes. How about Obama who hauled in the highest revenue EVER this year from taxes and has removed the American middle class from its position as richest in the world? All while throwing parties for the children of the richest people in the country?

http://www.nytimes.com...
http://www.metro.us...


It depends on how you look at Mitt's tax plan -- and, mind you, he never did tell us which loopholes he wanted to close. Either he raised taxes on the middle class, or he increased the deficit. He cited one study that said that his plan worked, and even in that plan, charitable deductions were capped out, which did amount to a giant tax increase on the middle class.

As for the next point: I could be snide and say, "since when do conservatives care about the middle class?" but I won't.

You're right. The middle class is doing awful right now. But that's hardly because of X Obama policy or Y Keynesian idea. Obama by all accounts has been a mediocre president, but it was GOP policy that perpetuated the stagnation of the middle class, beginning in the 1980s with flat-lining median wages in spite of the fact that workers were twice as productive. So, yes, Obama bears some blame for not doing enough to alleviate middle class suffering, but the policies you would want are what induced it in the first place. It's not as though cutting taxes for the rich is going to life the middle class. We've heard that narrative before; it's never happened.

As for the other point of "throwing parties for the richest kids in America": He's doing that? I didn't know that, and I don't really care enough about this to actually dig through the links -- I know one is on the stagnating middle class, which you were right to point out. If that's true, I guess I'm indifferent. I mean, I don't think it's right that rich people are doing well on the backs of the middle class, sure. But isn't he just acting as presidents before him did? I've even seen people attack him for taking vacations, though he never came close to Bush Jr. or Reagan.

Bleh both parties have honestly been garbage for a long time. They keep picking "electable" people or people who are "next in line" rather than good leaders.

We need a leader right now.

See, that's a point we completely agree on. I think we could both agree that Mitt Romney was "next in line," and the same goes now for Hillary Clinton.

Out of curiosity, though, who would fit your criteria for a leader?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2014 5:00:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/25/2014 3:05:10 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/25/2014 2:55:54 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 4/25/2014 1:01:42 PM, monty1 wrote:
Cooommmmmme Baaacccckkkk Bundy supporters, cooooommmmeeeee baaaacccckkkkk. Last chance to demonstrate you have real balls or you've been socially and politically castrated by Bundy's big fukkk up!

Most people supported his actions not his belief system. I still support his standing up to the feds but obviously not his antiquated stance on race.

What do you mean by "standing up to the Feds"? Didn't he refuse to pay grazing fees, but let his herd roam on public, taxpayer-funded land?
Taxpayer-funded land.
Taxpayer-funded land.
What did these stolen dollars that allegedly went into the land DO to the land? Are you speaking of merely purchasing a piece of paper from Mexico, who had no rightful prior claim, or are you saying the government has actually created something with that land-- that Bundy is deriving some advantage from those tax dollars? Did the government plant grass there or something?


It's one thing to say that the fees shouldn't exist or the land should be privatized, but we're dealing with someone who broke a law that was already on the books.
That argument doesn't work on me when you talk about immigration, it won't work on me here. When someone says "Don't oppress people," you don't say "The law is already on the books," aka "I'm already oppressing people so it's okay." It's not okay. It doesn't matter how long you've been doing it, you can and ought to stop, and they are not evil for disobeying your oppressive edicts.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2014 5:07:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/25/2014 5:00:02 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 4/25/2014 3:05:10 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/25/2014 2:55:54 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 4/25/2014 1:01:42 PM, monty1 wrote:
Cooommmmmme Baaacccckkkk Bundy supporters, cooooommmmeeeee baaaacccckkkkk. Last chance to demonstrate you have real balls or you've been socially and politically castrated by Bundy's big fukkk up!

Most people supported his actions not his belief system. I still support his standing up to the feds but obviously not his antiquated stance on race.

What do you mean by "standing up to the Feds"? Didn't he refuse to pay grazing fees, but let his herd roam on public, taxpayer-funded land?
Taxpayer-funded land.
Taxpayer-funded land.
What did these stolen dollars that allegedly went into the land DO to the land? Are you speaking of merely purchasing a piece of paper from Mexico, who had no rightful prior claim, or are you saying the government has actually created something with that land-- that Bundy is deriving some advantage from those tax dollars? Did the government plant grass there or something?

This argument honestly only works if you accept as a premise that the government had no rightful claim to own any land, which is effectively saying that the government shouldn't exist. Is that your position?


It's one thing to say that the fees shouldn't exist or the land should be privatized, but we're dealing with someone who broke a law that was already on the books.
That argument doesn't work on me when you talk about immigration, it won't work on me here. When someone says "Don't oppress people," you don't say "The law is already on the books," aka "I'm already oppressing people so it's okay." It's not okay. It doesn't matter how long you've been doing it, you can and ought to stop, and they are not evil for disobeying your oppressive edicts.

As I said earlier, I think comparing this law to any "oppressive law" is a reductio ad absurdum. If a grazing fee is oppressive, then any form of government is oppressive.

It's interesting, actually, because I've seen many libertarians -- particularly minarchists -- argue that the only legitimate tax is a user fee, or some form of sales tax. I take it you're not in their camp.
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2014 6:03:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/25/2014 4:51:19 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/25/2014 4:48:06 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 4/25/2014 4:44:38 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/25/2014 4:24:54 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 4/25/2014 4:22:00 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/25/2014 4:09:31 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 4/25/2014 3:05:10 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/25/2014 2:55:54 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 4/25/2014 1:01:42 PM, monty1 wrote:
Cooommmmmme Baaacccckkkk Bundy supporters, cooooommmmeeeee baaaacccckkkkk. Last chance to demonstrate you have real balls or you've been socially and politically castrated by Bundy's big fukkk up!

Most people supported his actions not his belief system. I still support his standing up to the feds but obviously not his antiquated stance on race.

What do you mean by "standing up to the Feds"? Didn't he refuse to pay grazing fees, but let his herd roam on public, taxpayer-funded land?

It's one thing to say that the fees shouldn't exist or the land should be privatized, but we're dealing with someone who broke a law that was already on the books. And, no, that doesn't implicate that all laws on the books are just, but I know that you're too smart to fire back with a reductio ad absurdum to the tune of "how about slavery?" so I shouldn't worry.

How is empty arid land "taxpayer-funded"? There's no cost to keeping it. And since it's owned by the gov't there's not even taxes on it...

Also, since when do progressives give two flips about the taxpayer?


There are costs to maintaining, as minuscule as they admittedly were, but that isn't the point. There were grazing fees which he dodged. By all means, oppose the fees, but it's a bit hard to support the guy after he broke the law.

And come on, you know that's a strawman. Of course I care about the taxpayer. In fact, I care about them so much that I voted -- or would have voted -- against Mitt Romney because his plan involved raising taxes on people who couldn't afford it to give a $250,000 tax break to people who could.

Mitt Romney was not going to raise taxes. How about Obama who hauled in the highest revenue EVER this year from taxes and has removed the American middle class from its position as richest in the world? All while throwing parties for the children of the richest people in the country?

http://www.nytimes.com...
http://www.metro.us...


It depends on how you look at Mitt's tax plan -- and, mind you, he never did tell us which loopholes he wanted to close. Either he raised taxes on the middle class, or he increased the deficit. He cited one study that said that his plan worked, and even in that plan, charitable deductions were capped out, which did amount to a giant tax increase on the middle class.

As for the next point: I could be snide and say, "since when do conservatives care about the middle class?" but I won't.

You're right. The middle class is doing awful right now. But that's hardly because of X Obama policy or Y Keynesian idea. Obama by all accounts has been a mediocre president, but it was GOP policy that perpetuated the stagnation of the middle class, beginning in the 1980s with flat-lining median wages in spite of the fact that workers were twice as productive. So, yes, Obama bears some blame for not doing enough to alleviate middle class suffering, but the policies you would want are what induced it in the first place. It's not as though cutting taxes for the rich is going to life the middle class. We've heard that narrative before; it's never happened.

As for the other point of "throwing parties for the richest kids in America": He's doing that? I didn't know that, and I don't really care enough about this to actually dig through the links -- I know one is on the stagnating middle class, which you were right to point out. If that's true, I guess I'm indifferent. I mean, I don't think it's right that rich people are doing well on the backs of the middle class, sure. But isn't he just acting as presidents before him did? I've even seen people attack him for taking vacations, though he never came close to Bush Jr. or Reagan.

Bleh both parties have honestly been garbage for a long time. They keep picking "electable" people or people who are "next in line" rather than good leaders.

We need a leader right now.


See, that's a point we completely agree on. I think we could both agree that Mitt Romney was "next in line," and the same goes now for Hillary Clinton.

Out of curiosity, though, who would fit your criteria for a leader?

On the Republican side of the aisle I think Rick Perry was a great governor of Texas, I think Rand Paul could possibly be a leader. I think Newt Gingrich is a great leader! If you look at the work he did with Congress in the 90s.

On the Dem side, I'm not sure. Clinton would be an okay leader I guess. Not Biden, not Cuomo... aha
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2014 10:39:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/25/2014 4:05:02 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 4/25/2014 3:37:48 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
Really Conservative? He broke the law and aimed a gun at someone who was enforcing it. Shows that people value illegal grazing more then the life of our officers

He refused to pay BS "fees" on land his family has been grazing on since the 1850s. Its land nobody wants and the BLM just wanted to make a quick buck by charging "grazing fees". They didn't plant the scrub grass and bushes, they didn't even look twice at them. The reason why the fees got so expensive was because of some stupid desert tortoise that lives there and he said he wasn't going to pay additional fees because of some stupid tortoise. I agree with that.

Actually, managing land is expensive--in case you haven't noticed, we have extensively damaged the ecosystem by rendering species locally extinct, introducing nonnative species, and polluting the environment. Undoing this damage, and preventing it from happening again, takes work.

This isn't just the tortoise, either. Overgrazing can damage the ability of plants to recover from wildfire.
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2014 10:44:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/25/2014 5:00:02 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Did the government plant grass there or something?

Well, I don't know about grass, but yes, the government has extensively maintained the land by removing nonnative species. I'll have to double check, but I think there's a reintroduction project for some species in the general region--the desert tortoise specifically as one of the target species--so they may have also reintroduced locally extinct species, or tried to bolster populations.

As a side note, I don't think you know what oppression is.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2014 2:43:48 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
How is it racist to repeat what NAACP former-head C.L. Bryant said. The same thing that black Republican Elbert Guillory said. Bundy is the opposite of racist, he wants freedom for every race. He has black Americans voluntarily providing 24/7 security who he has invited in his home and provided hospitality to. Bundy does not walk around with a white hood like Democrat idol Margaret Sangers favorite group, the KKK. Bundy was actually trying to invite more minorities to come out there and support him, he was hoping for a more diverse group than a bunch of white people with a few minorities in the mix.

But see, it's not racist when Joe Biden says that Obama is the first mainstream black American who is articulate and clean. It's not racist when Harry Reid said that Obama is "light-skinned" who has "no negro dialect." It's not bad when Al Sharpton says "China-man," "cracker," and homophobic rhetoric. It's not racist when Lyndon Johnson expresses fear of "uppity negroes."

It's the racist Democrats that are the true bigots who have widespread support of racist, ethnic cleansing mass genocide of minority babies promoted by Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood. Hillary Clinton literally accepted a Margaret Sanger award and was so proud to receive the award representing ethnic cleansing eugenics and depopulation of the "unfit."
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2014 2:51:28 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
""Black Republicans are like Jewish Nazis" article promoted by Dem. Gov. Quinn"s campaign"
http://www.bizpacreview.com...

"I don't know how anyone of Hispanic heritage could be a Republican." -- Harry Reid
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

"You cannot go to a 7-11 or a Dunkin Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent. I"m not joking!" -- Joe Biden

"I mean you"ve got the first sort of mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and nice-looking guy." " Joe Biden

"I love this quote. It"s from Mahatma Gandhi. He ran a gas station down in St. Louis for a couple of years. Mr. Gandhi, do you still go to the gas station? A lot of wisdom comes out of that gas station" " Hillary Clinton

http://mediatrackers.org...
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2014 11:04:19 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/25/2014 10:44:04 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 4/25/2014 5:00:02 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Did the government plant grass there or something?

Well, I don't know about grass, but yes, the government has extensively maintained the land by removing nonnative species. I'll have to double check, but I think there's a reintroduction project for some species in the general region--the desert tortoise specifically as one of the target species--so they may have also reintroduced locally extinct species, or tried to bolster populations.

As a side note, I don't think you know what oppression is.
Oppression: The initiation of force.

Did the removal of nonnative species predate the ranching?

What value did they derive from the removal of nonnative species? Remember, the usual remedy for a violation of someone's property is suing to recover damages.

If I shoot a deer in the midst of wilderness, how many acres do I own now? For both the cases: The deer is native and the deer is nonnative.

How much is the ranching affecting the desert tortoise/whatever population, and again, which came first, the reintroduction or the ranching?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2014 1:00:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/25/2014 3:37:48 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
Really Conservative? He broke the law and aimed a gun at someone who was enforcing it. Shows that people value illegal grazing more then the life of our officers

You know Jifpop... I agree with you. I never liked this guy, and I hated seeing him show up on the conservative sites I visit. He was too ignorant to pay some fees and let his cattle roam on land he didn't own. Now he's a romanticized hero?
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2014 1:51:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/26/2014 11:04:19 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 4/25/2014 10:44:04 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 4/25/2014 5:00:02 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Did the government plant grass there or something?

Well, I don't know about grass, but yes, the government has extensively maintained the land by removing nonnative species. I'll have to double check, but I think there's a reintroduction project for some species in the general region--the desert tortoise specifically as one of the target species--so they may have also reintroduced locally extinct species, or tried to bolster populations.

As a side note, I don't think you know what oppression is.
Oppression: The initiation of force.

See, you don't know what oppression is.

Did the removal of nonnative species predate the ranching?

Quite possibly. One would have to check.

What value did they derive from the removal of nonnative species? Remember, the usual remedy for a violation of someone's property is suing to recover damages.

Some of us prefer to have our ecosystem intact, thank you very much.

How much is the ranching affecting the desert tortoise/whatever population, and again, which came first, the reintroduction or the ranching?

Adversely. Which came first is irrelevant, as the land is not his.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2014 1:55:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/26/2014 1:51:50 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 4/26/2014 11:04:19 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 4/25/2014 10:44:04 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 4/25/2014 5:00:02 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Did the government plant grass there or something?

Well, I don't know about grass, but yes, the government has extensively maintained the land by removing nonnative species. I'll have to double check, but I think there's a reintroduction project for some species in the general region--the desert tortoise specifically as one of the target species--so they may have also reintroduced locally extinct species, or tried to bolster populations.

As a side note, I don't think you know what oppression is.
Oppression: The initiation of force.

See, you don't know what oppression is.
That's not actually an argument for your position.

You probably think oppression means "Being a white cis male" or something?

What value did they derive from the removal of nonnative species? Remember, the usual remedy for a violation of someone's property is suing to recover damages.

Some of us prefer to have our ecosystem intact, thank you very much.
"Our ecosystem?" That's collectivism, not property.


How much is the ranching affecting the desert tortoise/whatever population, and again, which came first, the reintroduction or the ranching?

Adversely.
I was asking the mechanism and extent.

Which came first is irrelevant, as the land is not his.
Which came first is what determines whether he or the government is the rightful (not titular) owner in the matter.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.