User Profile: Sosorryforyou

Sosorryforyou

Member Since: August 03, 2012

CommentsDisplaying comments newest to oldest.

123 To page: Go
  • April 18, 2014 at 10:05am

    Domestic terrorist seems apt. After all, the BML agents were only there to advance a court order to seize Bundy’s cattle because they were trespassing on public land that Bundy voluntarily gave up his right to graze on. They let Bundy know when they’d be there, so Bundy responds with violent threats and tells the agents that they’d be met with an armed revolt. Sure enough, the entire time the agents were there, militant citizens had arms aimed at them. So, who actually escalated the threat? Bundy did by making violent threats beforehand and calling in his supporters to uphold his deadbeat ways with violence, if neccessary. And you yahoos believe it was wrong for BML to arm themselves before entering such a situation and blame them for the escalation? Delusional.

  • April 18, 2014 at 9:49am

    They didn’t steal his cattle. They had a court order to seize his cattle for non compliance for trespassing on land that he voluntarily refused to pay grazing right fees for. They let Bundy know when they would seize his cattle and Bundy responded with severe and violent threats and said that the agents would be met by an armed revolt. THAT’s why the BML agents were armed.

  • April 18, 2014 at 9:15am

    Wow! Not only does he refuse to pay his required grazing right fees and doesn’t recognize that the Federal Gov exists, now we learn that he doesn’t pay his federal taxes. And, this is the delusional crook you yahoos choose to get behind by brandishing guns aimed at BML who were there to advance a court order against this crook? Good luck defending that in the coming election cycles.

  • April 18, 2014 at 9:06am

    WorriedNVmom – the Hage case was about being denied grazing rights and protection from trespassing charges, and since Bundy was never denied his grazing rights, this case would not protect him from rights that he voluntarily gave up (remember, he voluntarily decided to stop paying his grazing right’s fees thus leading to the withdrawal of his grazing rights one year later and therefore, any subsequent protection from trespassing charges on lands that he gave up his right to graze). You can’t be denied and protected against something you don’t have.

  • April 17, 2014 at 7:58pm

    JustAngry – “On an arbitrary whim the government decided that the Bundy’s can’t graze there anymore”. Wrong. There was nothing arbitrary about it. Bundy was never denied his grazing rights, he LOST them – in 1994, one year after his non-compliance to pay his grazing rights fees. In 1998, other local ranchers were “bought out” of their grazing rights, but that was 4 years after Bundy had lost his rights to them because of his non-compliance.

  • April 17, 2014 at 7:40pm

    Coll53 – Bundy lose of his grazing rights was fully self-induced through his voluntary non-compliance to pay his grazing fees. This court ruling would not apply to him, as this case is partially about being denied grazing rights. Bundy stopped paying his in 1993 and lost his grazing rights a year later entirely due to his not paying his fees. You can’t be denied something you don’t have because of your voluntary non-compliance.

  • April 17, 2014 at 3:33pm

    So Soy – if the BLM had just comes in, unarmed, to arrest Bundy to be tried and convicted, you think that this armed militant-style group would have just let them? You can’t be serious. The BLM were armed because Bundy had made severe and violent threats if the Feds moved in. As far as confiscating his property, what if someone was profiting off of an oil rig they put up on public land and refused for over 20 years to pay their oil rig fees and remove it and even expanded their operation for many acres. Do you think it would be illegal for the Feds to come in and take it down if the person who illegally put it there wouldn’t? Let’s say I set up a tent in a national park and leave it there for 20 years and refuse to pay my back country camping fees for those 20 years, do you really think that after losing two court cases and being pressed for 20 years to get my tent off the land, I can expect to not lose my property? That’s what’s happening here. Bundy is a deadbeat who is violating the law. How can you support someone who does not recognize the property rights of ALL Americans? Federal lands are OUR lands – not his to use for his personal gain.

  • April 17, 2014 at 2:54pm

    Every president has been dishonest at times. Obama no more than any other.

  • April 17, 2014 at 2:52pm

    Nothing new. Most Americans think ALL presidents lie. I’ve lived through 10 presidents and have known that every single one of them have lied – many times.

    http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/02/22/poll.political.honesty/

  • April 17, 2014 at 12:12pm

    Grond- that’s right – WE own it. And, WE are the Federal Gov. And, WE pay federal taxes for that land. That is the part that everyone forgets. And, I want his stinking cows off of OUR property. He has NO right to use it for his own individual gain. NO RIGHT. Have any of you thought about what kind of precedent this would be setting by allowing EVERYONE ( because that’s what you’re advocating), to do whatever they individually want on OUR land? Bundy is just a deadbeat crook squatting on MY and YOUR land for his own personal gain.

  • April 17, 2014 at 10:15am

    I think Beck is just bored – and he gets bored often – and he needs to feed that boredom – often. Every few weeks he’s sporting some new venture e.g. Beck University, The Marketplace, his Restoring events, his 1794 clothing line, his MANY books, his movie studio ideas, his collections, etc., etc., etc. Personally, I see this as a symptom of his addictive personality – he needs to keep moving and changing his persona in order to feed that nervous, addictive energy and to feel good about himself, like he’s accomplishing something, and he does this so frequently that most people can see this as frenetic and unusual. His is a classic addictive personality. I don’t blame him though. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing as long as he’s at peace with himself, although I have noticed that his self righteous, “I’m here to bring you something no one else has ever brought to you” ideas flare up whenever he feels his influence is waning.

  • April 16, 2014 at 10:00pm

    Desert – nothing new. Transportation and security costs is a privilege we have always granted our Presidents and First Ladies. Laura Bush flew many more times abroad and domestically than Michelle Obama, and she needed just as many secret service and other staff. What do you say to that?

  • April 16, 2014 at 8:59pm

    And do a little research.

  • April 16, 2014 at 8:11pm

    Old video.

  • April 16, 2014 at 7:37pm

    Do a little research, honey. Doesn’t take long.

    Responses (1) +
  • April 16, 2014 at 7:35pm

    Suppose you skipped over this part: “The Obamas occasionally attend St. John’s, which has come to be known “the church of the presidents” for its proximity to the White House and its numerous presidential parishioners.” Looks like he’s hardly the only President to attend there.

  • April 16, 2014 at 7:31pm

    And he gave to something like 30 Charities!!

    Responses (1) +
  • April 16, 2014 at 6:52pm

    Before making such judgmental and ignorant comments, look at pages 28 & 29 of the Obama’s tax return. You’ll find the entire list. You could have figured this out on your own if you weren’t in such a rush to bash the President.

  • April 16, 2014 at 6:37pm

    Pages 28 & 29 of their tax return.

  • April 16, 2014 at 6:30pm

    Yep, just like Reagan who gave far less percentage-wise than the Obama’s – every year of his presidency!

123 To page: Go