Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
Nevada Rancher Hilarity: The Tragic Death of Y'All Qaeda's Tarp Man Nevada Rancher Hilarity: The Tragic Death of Y'All Qaeda's Tarp Man

02-02-2016 , 10:10 PM
Are there incidents where the government has done a back burn and not compensated someone whose property was destroyed as a result?

So if tarp man wasn't shot, would he have been tried with attempted murder for almost hitting the agent?
02-02-2016 , 10:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dids
Guys, once wiper shot a boat we mined all the possible good out of this stupid bullet hole hijack. Y'all don't agree and that seems unlikely to change.

wiper absolutely isn't getting remotely enough credit for that, either. Dude went full Mythbusters on the most inane myth I could imagine, but he was somehow prepared for exactly that idea.
02-02-2016 , 10:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjoefish
So then we can believe the police in Boston that said they shot real bullets, no?
The police I've talked to had a different story
02-02-2016 , 10:24 PM
Lol
02-02-2016 , 10:27 PM
I guess they told him the truth and lied to the media and courts. Makes sense.
02-02-2016 , 10:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LASJayhawk
So the first 2 fires were started on his land and escaped onto the public land. Where the 3rd fire started was not stated.

The burn ban applies to starting the fire on the public land.


Ok here is the dead person in his own words as to why he has a beef (pun intended)

If I find something better to do than hear him ramble for 30 minutes (like rewatching the new Venture Bros) can I assume "his ranch" "his pasture" and "his reservoir" actually belong to the people of the United States?

Last edited by problemeliminator; 02-02-2016 at 10:45 PM.
02-02-2016 , 10:30 PM
Or there were several agencies involved and they all have a different story
02-03-2016 , 01:41 AM
nobody cares dude stfu about it

so aids
02-03-2016 , 01:46 AM
It's like half the posts ITT so apparently someone cares.
02-03-2016 , 01:49 AM
No idea why you people keep responding to d10.
02-03-2016 , 11:36 AM
I do it because it's funny to watch conspiracy nuts hand wave everything.
02-03-2016 , 11:46 AM
It's an irritating derail from the enigma that was Tarp Man.
02-03-2016 , 12:07 PM
Calling d10 a conspiracy nut just seems ridiculous.
02-03-2016 , 12:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjshabado
Calling d10 a conspiracy nut just seems ridiculous.
It's insulting to conspiracy nuts. d10 is just a bullet skeptic, he's seen the reports and the holes but just doesn't believe that primer can ignite gunpowder.
02-03-2016 , 01:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjoefish
I do it because it's funny to watch conspiracy nuts hand wave everything.
It's ****ing watching a re-run a TV show that wasn't good in the first place and is always ****ing on anyway. Except that now you're showing up in the common room and turning on ****ing Modern Family on so everybody has to watch.

DON'T MAKE ME WATCH MODERN FAMILY.
02-03-2016 , 01:46 PM
this kind if thread is really what unchained ought to be for.
02-03-2016 , 02:27 PM
Dids do you do anything other than complain about what folks talk about?
02-03-2016 , 02:33 PM
Yes I also call people racists.

(I mean come on, just look at the other posts I made at basically the same time today- there's plenty of actual content. GTFO with that bull**** and stop making the forum ****ty.)
02-03-2016 , 03:20 PM
Dids hating mf is hilarious. Its an entire show written just for him.
02-03-2016 , 05:12 PM
Dids4mod
02-03-2016 , 05:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LASJayhawk
if you set a back burn on your land to protect your house and it burns 1 unimproved acre of federal land, you get convicted under anti terrorism laws.

Sure you are ok with that?
What the Hammonds did was reckless and criminal, but I agree that it wasn't terrorism and that terrorism laws shouldn't be used for that kind of thing.The sensible thing would be to try to get the law changed. You'd probably even get bipartisan support for it.
02-03-2016 , 05:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 13ball
What the Hammonds did was reckless and criminal, but I agree that it wasn't terrorism and that terrorism laws shouldn't be used for that kind of thing.The sensible thing would be to try to get the law changed. You'd probably even get bipartisan support for it.
yup. you'd easily get bipartisan support for it. the lefties think the anti-terror laws overstep their bounds and the righties never intended white americans to be prosecuted under them.

but that would be the sensible thing, using government to get what you want.

instead, this group made the decision to say "**** you usa, we are setting up our own government, come and get us".

it wasn't a prudent decision.
02-03-2016 , 06:10 PM
If you want to make anything less illegal you have to get the approval of the police, the police unions, the private prison system and the prison guard unions.
02-03-2016 , 06:11 PM
If you tried to propose rolling back that law Ted Cruz would claim you're encouraging ISIS to set forest fires
02-03-2016 , 06:39 PM
Speaking of prison lobby and presidential candidates

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poste...talking-about/

Quote:
Marco Rubio is one of the best examples of the private prison industry’s growing political influence, a connection that deserves far more attention now that he’s officially launched a presidential bid. The U.S. senator has a history of close ties to the nation’s second-largest for-profit prison company, GEO Group, stretching back to his days as speaker of the Florida House of Representatives. While Rubio was leading the House, GEO was awarded a state government contract for a $110 million prison soon after Rubio hired an economic consultant who had been a trustee for a GEO real estate trust. Over his career, Rubio has received nearly $40,000 in campaign donations from GEO, making him the Senate’s top career recipient of contributions from the company. (Rubio’s office did not respond to requests for comment.)
Prisons lobbying for tighter laws to get more people into prison is like

.

      
m