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 man" had enough power to shut him down. I am far from an expert on the bundy affair. however it seems as the op has a point with this case. some on the right don't seem to have a problem with people breaking the law or protesting as long as they don't agree with it.
I don't understand how the right is offended by anti police rhetoric when Sharpton says it, yet they have no problem calling for a violent clash with police officers.
Not at all. I oppose police abuse of power. If Sharpton says we should peacefully protest police abuse of power, that is good. There is a lot of police abuse of power. But when Sharpton encourages people to burn down stores and loot those stores just because he disagrees with a grand jury decision, he is wrong.
I also oppose shooting police as they did in NYC.
If the Bundy group drove to Las Vegas and starting burning and looting stores, I would be totally opposed to their actions.
Not at all. I oppose police abuse of power. If Sharpton says we should peacefully protest police abuse of power, that is good. There is a lot of police abuse of power. But when Sharpton encourages people to burn down stores and loot those stores just because he disagrees with a grand jury decision, he is wrong.
I also oppose shooting police as they did in NYC.
If the Bundy group drove to Las Vegas and starting burning and looting stores, I would be totally opposed to their actions.
"the man" had enough power to shut him down. I am far from an expert on the bundy affair. however it seems as the op has a point with this case. some on the right don't seem to have a problem with people breaking the law or protesting as long as they don't agree with it.
Violence leads to more violence....
Only BLM were violent in the Bundys case.
That is what brought out the peoples militia, as the Bill of Rights says it does.
I would not call anything I have seen, a well regulated militia, in Ferguson, or NYC.
Or are we still living in the days of the Freeman.
Not at all. I oppose police abuse of power. If Sharpton says we should peacefully protest police abuse of power, that is good. There is a lot of police abuse of power. But when Sharpton encourages people to burn down stores and loot those stores just because he disagrees with a grand jury decision, he is wrong.
I also oppose shooting police as they did in NYC.
If the Bundy group drove to Las Vegas and starting burning and looting stores, I would be totally opposed to their actions.
It really is that simple.
I missed sharpton "encouraging people to burn down stores and loot the stores" you got a link to that or a video clip?
"the man" had enough power to shut him down. I am far from an expert on the bundy affair. however it seems as the op has a point with this case. some on the right don't seem to have a problem with people breaking the law or protesting as long as they don't agree with it.
I'm sorry, you tried very hard to create a false equivalency, and now you demonstrate that you don't even believe your own argument.
1. The protesters at the Bundy Ranch were not protesting the actions of police. They were protesting the actions of a government agency which routinely breaks the law, ignores the law, and has created a paramilitary force with no purpose, no reason to exist, and no ACTUAL legal function. It sent a combination of HIRED cowboys and said no-legal-purpose paramilitary force to try to intimidate the people into surrender.
2. The federal government stole the grazing rights of vastly more than just Bundy. The federal government has further STOLEN most of Nevada. Article 1, section 8:
Quote:
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;
The federal government ONLY has authority over Washington DC proper, and, those areas and buildings which the STATES sell to the federal government for the purposes named. That's it. There is nothing there about owning any part of any state. Ergo, it is expressly FORBIDDEN to do so:
Quote:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
There is simply no valid argument possible that the federal government has any authority WHATSOEVER over the lands in question.
So, if you bought a home, and one day the feds showed up and demanded money for you to live there, and then eventually forbid you to even use it, would they have stolen your home?
Of course.
But somehow, somewhere, you have decided that absolutely crystal clear statements in the Constitution don't mean what they mean.
Explain why you think that.
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.
