Not saying the 'why' isn't worthy of ridicule... cause it most certainly is. But I really don't think that's the where the ridicule is mainly coming from.

Most of the ridicule is regarding the 'how'. If someone submitted a script of this incident to a movie producer, as fiction, what would he say. One, this is a comedy, right? And two, while clowns acting clownish can be funny, it really needs to be rewritten so that at least one of the Y'all-Q banditos aren't portrayed as a complete idiot, and as a purely self-interested sociopath.

AFAIK we haven't heard how the Y'all-Q dude got shot in the arm. I'm going to make a WAG, and say he accidently shot himself, or one of his fellow travellers accidently shot him.

Well, the girl who was in the truck said (in her interview) that they LEO's shot up the vehicle. You would think that the most logical explanation is that he was shot by a LEO.

I don't think you really said much of anything in your post - no facts, no arguments, no logic - just ridicule.

I said it was a WAG. WAG stands for "Wild Ass Guess".

IDK what to say. FYI: I have actual experience occupying both public and private places. Under what possible scenario would this occupation have been a success? What was the up-side? IMO, all these idiots are lucky that only one of them has been killed so far.

I'm not sure, I hadn't really thought about it too much, but if I had to take a WAG, I'd say they hoped to gain some national attention and make it an issue that people become interested in.

Fair enough. Although not my cup-o-tea, I've been talking into actions where that was our goal. This is in fact a quite common goal. As such, we can judge the Y'all-Q gang's tactics and strategy employed in their attempt to achieve that goal -vs- what's worked in the past, etc.

And... they are a buncha clowns, of pretty much epic proportions. I'd be funny, but their clownish behavior has gotten one of them killed so far.

I'm Canadian, so I don't know what American hicks are like, but I worked with a few Canadian ones and I find them very hokey and simple - but generally pretty nice people. I wouldn't really mesh with them if we hung out - getting excited about talking about horses is so lame

With that said, I've looked into the situation to see the the ranchers side and I think they have some legit grievances with the government.

Were these lands transferred to the US government under Civil Forfeiture laws?\

"Don't bring up Kent Hovid, he's irrelevant. Except for being the subject of the youtubez i just linked."

I'm not going to watch the video, but the wikipedia article on his tax problems is quite interesting interesting
Not a crackpot at all.
Imagine that!

What a weird hill for a non-troll "atheist" new poster to die on. Picking someone who entirely belongs in jail and who should absolutely have all his property seized as his example of injustice.

Well, different strokes for different folks, of course. Perhaps, not being a US taxpayer, you might not have fully considered that a lot of us think we have some legit grievances with the government too. In particular, we don't like to see that money they take out of our paychecks every two weeks going to subsidize a buncha whiney welfare queens.

Grunching here, but since you are Canadian you may not understand how our government works. It has 3 separate, independent branches. The federal judges that are hearing the grazing cases are independent of the agency that manages federal lands and sets grazing fees. The BLM is part of the Executive Branch and the courts are in the Judicial. Each branch has its own powers and responsibilities under our constitution and they operate very differently. Federal judges are appointed for life and are largely insulated from political pressures whereas the agency employees, i.e., the people who run the agencies and set policies, are appointed and serve by and for the President. Agency employees, the top positions at least, are very political and basically change whenever a new President gets elected. So the people directing the BLM who are directing and enforcing stuff like grazing policy, to the extent that they have any particular allegiancy to the Federal government over some random private citizens, it's going to be to the President and his administration. Same with the federal judges who handle these cases, unless they are a new appointee, they have no special interest in the President or the executive branch. So when you hear these ranchers say it's they are all part of the federal government, yeah they are right in the technical semantikey sense, but in reality that means nothing. Federal appeals judges aren't in cahoots with BLM middle agents conspiring to take the Bundys' property and make them look dumb. The Bundys, for instance, have been advancing dumb, ignorant legal claims and losing in Federal court since before Obama was in politics. The reason they, and similar-minded ranchers, keep losing is because they don't have legitimate grievances, at least to the extent they think they do.

At least after this even the biggest dullard will agree these idiots shouldn't be allowed to own guns

i am willing to wager that someone will prove this statement wrong.

The last "legitimate grievance" you told us about was the BLM not paying out a judgment that an appeals court threw out so...color me skeptical

Not sure about legitimate grievances but they certainly have illegitimate beefs.

then before defending this group, you might want to look into the lack of support they got from other ranchers. many of them think that this group set them back considerably when it comes to resolving those grievances. i'd tend to think they are right about that, fwiw, judging from the overall reaction of the american people to this situation (e.g. they are a bunch of fools and continually got made fun off).

iow, you need to find a better example than this one if you want to highlight rancher's grievances.

pretty interesting thread i came across in another forum. a poster in this thread lives there, and provided updates from the townspeople's standpoint.

worth a read

true dat.

posters needing 1st grade explanations of the concept of checks and balances itt

BUT THEY GOT STRONG OPINIONS ANYWAY

well put. there may be some legit grievances, but simply not wanting to pay your (subsidized) grazing fees isn't one of them.

also, i'm gonna take a wag that the ones that came from faraway places don't give even one single **** about rancher's grievances.

I c what u did there.

Uh, you don't know what those words mean, and neither does Bundy. "Prosecutor" is just a word that means "plantiff's lawyer when the plaintiff is the government in a criminal trial". There's no conflict of interest here. The prosecutor is ALWAYS on the plaintiff's side.


I mean, given your racist Ferguson conspiracy **** I can't be surprised that basic ****ing English was beyond you, but what the **** who would possibly find this persuasive?

****ing incredible though that this dude with an incredibly hard bias against the government makes one exception for killing Mike Brown. What a ****ing surprise. No conflict of interest there!

yeah, that's kinda how it works in our legal system in the united states.

if the poster was american and had done his civic duty and done jury duty, he'd be aware of the inanity of bundy's claim, as well as the inanity of attempting to defend it.

i like the fact that people from the rest of the world comment on the united states, it adds some well-needed perspective. but those people need to at least inform themselves on the basics of our legal system before commenting on it.

I don't doubt that ranchers have what they consider "legit grievances" against the government. Unfortunately, it is the government's purpose to work in the best interests of all people, or as many as possible, rather than just a select view (which of course has been terribly compromised by how money flows into our political system, but that's a separate issue). In this case, they are trying to balance between environmental concerns, preservation of public land, and the rights of the ranchers who use the land. Sounds like the ranchers get a pretty fair deal though some have been hurt or even driven out of business by regulations, which is reason to be upset. At the same time, these people are basically demanding private ownership of public land, at which point they'd be able to profit off of it however they like, most likely involving its wholesale destruction by loggers, miners, etc.

My guess is that most people's stance will be determined by how they feel about the government in general and environmental regulations in particular. Let's all agree, though, that taking over a government building while armed and stating your willingness to die for your cause is not the optimal way to make your case. If you do think that this is the way to go, then you don't get to be upset when someone kills one of you.

btw, have we heard from the honorable ms. fiore recently? or has she crawled back under her rock?

B1. i think we all do. i bet virtually every poster here on 2+2 who lives in the usa has a common "legit grievance" against the us government (e.g. online poker and other stupid gambling laws). i've got a few other ones as well.

B2. nope. when you say "come and get me you dirty coppers, i'll die before you take me", you can't be surprised when they kill you.