Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The government has been more than patient with Bundy. He's had his case before courts at several levels and each time, the decision was in favor of the government. Now he's blabbering some nonsense about not recognizing the federal government as legitimate. The reality is that he doesn't get to make that call.
It's time for him to pay the taxpayers what he owes.
I fully understand that this incident has given the lunatic fringe an opportunity to get all huffy and puffy. And that's good. They need an occasional outlet for their "revolution."
Looks like he made that call already, what are YOU afraid of?
So what does this man owe taxpayers? and how does he owe taxpayers? LOL
They don't want the money, they want the land. They've already spent far more than he "owes" in this land grab operation.
What land do they want? the BLM land is already the governments land. If someone wants to build something on that land it would just happen, it's not the ranchers land, it doesn't make any sense to me.
The nonprofit group run by Al Sharpton, the MSNBC broadcaster whose profile has risen in the wake of the Trayvon Martin case, owes $871,688 in unpaid payroll taxes including penalties and interest, according to filings with both the state of New York and the Internal Revenue Service.
What did you think about the groups that showed up to defend those being kicked out of their houses when the economy crashed? Banks did screw over some home owners. Was it right to just tell them "too bad, thems the law"?
I'm missing the problem here.
I'm not saying that people didn't get kicked out of their homes, just that this group didn't see the need to take action when their places went up for auction because of back taxes.
You don't see a problem with parading around a property to protect a property owner who lost in court battle and misrepresenting this as a constitutional issue. Their time would be better spent surrounding NSA.
The nonprofit group run by Al Sharpton, the MSNBC broadcaster whose profile has risen in the wake of the Trayvon Martin case, owes $871,688 in unpaid payroll taxes including penalties and interest, according to filings with both the state of New York and the Internal Revenue Service.
I'm not saying that people didn't get kicked out of their homes, just that this group didn't see the need to take action when their places went up for auction because of back taxes.
People did though.....what do you think about those that did that?
Quote:
You don't see a problem with parading around a property to protect a property owner who lost in court battle and misrepresenting this as a constitutional issue. Their time would be better spent surrounding NSA.
He's simply a symbol of an out of control government. The original Boston Tea Party wasn't really about tea.
I'm sorry. I am not aware of Al Sharpton holding off the feds with a gathering of gun toting rebels without a cause.
He doesn't have to. Why is it that the Feds can excuse a $1 million for one person and not for another? Is this how the government is suppose to work? Favors for one but not the other? I'm not arguing that it doesn't work that way but is it suppose to?
He doesn't have to. Why is it that the Feds can excuse a $1 million for one person and not for another? Is this how the government is suppose to work? Favors for one but not the other? I'm not arguing that it doesn't work that way but is it suppose to?
Sounds like the IRS is still after him. (Apparently, it wasn't just the conservatives targeted by the IRS)
He doesn't have to. Why is it that the Feds can excuse a $1 million for one person and not for another? Is this how the government is suppose to work? Favors for one but not the other? I'm not arguing that it doesn't work that way but is it suppose to?
I agree that one-sidedness like what you're presenting would be shady, but to be truly equivalent would mean that at some point the rancher attempted to cut a deal for only paying part of the $1M that he owes in taxes. If he did so and the feds refused to compromise, but did so with Sharpton, then that is pretty dickish.
But if he never attempted to cut a deal then the two situations aren't relevant to one another.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
