Reid Stands by Bundy Remarks: They’re ‘Domestic Violent Terrorist Wannabes’

Joined
Dec 19, 2011
Messages
2,454
Reid Stands by Bundy Remarks: They’re ‘Domestic Violent Terrorist Wannabes’



Senator Harry Reid came under fire for saying Thursday that supporters of Cliven Bundy are “domestic terrorists,” and in a TV appearance today he doubled down. He appeared on local Nevada program What’s Your Point? with Dean Heller, Nevada’s other senator, and stood by his remarks, calling Bundy’s supporters “domestic violent terrorist wannabes.”

Reid said that Bundy “doesn’t believe that the American government is valid” and doesn’t follow the law, bringing up how hundreds of people showed up armed to defend Bundy to argue that they’re basically engaging in an act of domestic terrorism.

“600 people came. Armed. They had practice, they had maneuver, they knew what they were doing. They set up snipers in strategic locations with sniper rifles. They had assault weapons. They had automatic weapons… If there ever were an example of people who were domestic violent terrorist wannabes, these are the guys, and I think we should call it that way.”

Heller said, “What Senator Reid may call domestic terrorists, I call patriots.” Reid shot back, “If they’re patriots, we’re in real trouble.”

more here.... http://www.mediaite.com/tv/reid-stands-by-bundy-remarks-theyre-domestic-violent-terrorist-wannabes/
 
Reid is the terrorist. He supports urban development and then shrewdly transfers the ecological and other fallout to rural dwellers in adjacent areas. The latest euphemism is "secondary mitigation." Reid and his minions, for example, expect rural dwellers to help create, renew, or replenish water sources that were taken in urban development.

The rural dwellers object to this transfer of responsibility and Reid supports sending in his troops. They rough up women and pregnant women. That is the very epitome of terrorism.
 
“If they’re patriots, we’re in real trouble.”
...Well at least he finally got one thing correct in his long pointless political career.

Apropos, I feel that if Mr. Reid truly believes what he is peddling, with all this talk about domestic terrorism, then he should be brought up on inciting domestic terrorism charges. Rather than trying to tactfully reason the present issue, he is belittling, denigrating, or otherwise trivializing the very real concerns of the very people he considers to be so very dangerous. When standing beneath a towering tree one should take caution to not begin whacking hornet’s nests. A statesman Mr. Reid is certainly not.
 
Notice how when he calls the land "federal land", that he points his hands at himself, like he owns the **&**(( land. Dear God, I hate that POS.

I did not catch that. It really is very telling and pretty much says it all.

If anybody can stomach watching, it's the last few seconds of the video.
 
I have a difficult time getting behind a multimillionaire rancher (Cliven Bundy) who inherited a lot of his wealth, as well as getting wealth through Federal Subsidies not only through massive government agriculture programs, but grazing and water use of public lands, which in fact he stopped paying all together. So in fact he is like a welfare queen who is mad that they aren't getting enough free things, had his day in court and lost and now refuses to comply at the barrel of his gun to the legal order. That seems like the opposite of Libertarian principles to me ...

In addition, he put all those men, women and children's safety at risk to protect his fortune, for his greed, who largely thought they were doing the right thing and standing up for a cause and freedom. Yes, the BLM agents showed up armed, but they are just enforcing the multiple court orders that we in a civilized society strive to live by (rules and laws). Bundy needs to take his issues to court if he thinks he has a real legal standing, essentially he is stealing with the literal barrel of his gun.

If you really want to get behind Cliven Bundy, then you have to say the Federal Government doesn't exist, so we live in anarchy and is that really what people around here think? If you have ever voted for Ron Paul or a liberty candidate, then you have to admit to the system and you are trying to change it. This situation is just anarchy. Look what happened to Wesley Snipes when he went to jail over not paying his taxes, do the oath keepers and Cliven support him?
http://marquee.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/19/wesley-snipes-ordered-to-jail-on-tax-charges/
 
I have a difficult time getting behind a multimillionaire rancher (Cliven Bundy) who inherited a lot of his wealth,

WTF is wrong with someone inheriting wealth? I have to tell you that when someone says something negative about someone inheriting money, that it smacks a lot of jealousy. By the way, that is how farming/ranching has been pretty much since it first started. Land and equipment are handed down and the next generation continues farming/ranching on that land. While many used to have a high net worth because of the land and equipment they owned, they actually lived pretty meagerly. The land and equipment were tools of their trade.
 
Wonder who put Harry in the Senate? Oh, wait for it, the peoples of Nevada. Reap what you sow bitches.
 
Square, how can you be a member of this site since 08 and have an opinion like that? You're mad because he inherited 14hr days? Because he inherited day after day of backbreaking work? It's not all sunshine and lolipops kid, Cliven works his ass of everyday maintaining that land and his herd and his ranch. THAT is why he and others are fighting back. Not to protect an inheritance. I am disappointed, for real.
 
Terrorists like to kill people and take hostages, am I right?

...and no one is after Mr. Reid? He sleeps peacefully in his bed at night beside his wife, does he not?

Methinks he is using inflammatory statements in order to control the debate. We can say what we like here, we can discuss and debate; so long as the folks gathered around the Bundy ranch continue to barbecue and camp out without killing people or taking hostages, they are not terrorists.

It's really a shame that so many Americans do not understand the rights the Constitution safeguards for them. If more people did, however, Reid wouldn't have time to make his inflammatory statements.

Patriots really do like their rights, and that includes the right Reid has to say stupid shit. Patriots will not deprive a man of life or liberty without due process. No one is advocating violence, save Reid. I say that makes him the domestic terrorist.
 
Last edited:
This is why I made my thread the other day.

So Harry is lying here when he says it is Federal land? Why isn't anyone debating him calling him out on that if it is Nevada land? Why isn't anyone calling out that the BLM was formed AFTER Nevada already had rights to the land? They picked the worst guy to debate Reid on this by design.

Hell lets take it a step further and say the Native Americans actually own the land before any of us got here.

Those simple questions are not being injected into any debate I watch. If the above is true, it needs to be hammered over and over again.
 
Last edited:
I have a difficult time getting behind a multimillionaire rancher (Cliven Bundy) who inherited a lot of his wealth, as well as getting wealth through Federal Subsidies not only through massive government agriculture programs, but grazing and water use of public lands, which in fact he stopped paying all together. So in fact he is like a welfare queen who is mad that they aren't getting enough free things, had his day in court and lost and now refuses to comply at the barrel of his gun to the legal order. That seems like the opposite of Libertarian principles to me ...

In addition, he put all those men, women and children's safety at risk to protect his fortune, for his greed, who largely thought they were doing the right thing and standing up for a cause and freedom. Yes, the BLM agents showed up armed, but they are just enforcing the multiple court orders that we in a civilized society strive to live by (rules and laws). Bundy needs to take his issues to court if he thinks he has a real legal standing, essentially he is stealing with the literal barrel of his gun.

If you really want to get behind Cliven Bundy, then you have to say the Federal Government doesn't exist, so we live in anarchy and is that really what people around here think? If you have ever voted for Ron Paul or a liberty candidate, then you have to admit to the system and you are trying to change it. This situation is just anarchy. Look what happened to Wesley Snipes when he went to jail over not paying his taxes, do the oath keepers and Cliven support him?
http://marquee.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/19/wesley-snipes-ordered-to-jail-on-tax-charges/

735.gif
 
This is why I made my thread the other day.

So Harry is lying here when he says it is Federal land? Why isn't anyone debating him calling him out on that if it is Nevada land? Why isn't anyone calling out that the BLM was formed AFTER Nevada already had rights to the land? They picked the worst guy to debate Reid on this by design.
Harry Reid is a collectivist authoritarian here. He isn't so much as lying as he is advocating fascist policy. He is dead set that the Federal Government owns the land. They. do. not. Period. But even with all of the evidence he does not care. None of them do. They'll shoot down those who cannot otherwise be imprisoned or fined into compliance. Compliance of their non-law and bureaucratically enacted decrees, that is.

Everyone is calling him out on it. How does the Federal Government own 90% of Nevada? How does it own 48% of Arizona? They don't. They don't own any land absent military bases and Washington DC and even then, the ownership is not that of the government. It is of the people's. It's my goddamn Fort, after-all am I not robbed weekly to pay for it? This while the ticks of DC develop intricate means to avoid taxes while simultaneously digging my pockets for every cent they can discover?

Why isn't anyone calling out that 264,000,000 acres of the most valuable land has been squandered by an unconstitutional bureaucracy? Why don't they speak of the corrupt deals in which the Federal bureaucrats were lobbied by barons to have their worthless property dictated part of an ever growing National Park? The Fifth Amendment requires them to be compensated, after all. Well they were purposely given land with value far exceeding the property that was confiscated from them. This is aside from their schemes of acquiring thousands of acres, building their property, having the surrounding area labeled Federal Land and prohibiting anyone else from building or living there.

Oh wait, they have.

Hell lets take it a step further and say the Native Americans actually own the land before any of us got here.
They did. What, because the establishment of our government, we had some right to murder or dispel those already here? What happened to the American Indians was a shame. I'm not quite sure what you are getting at. (hopefully not anything along the lines of what squarepusher was getting at)

Those simple questions are not being injected into any debate I watch. If the above is true, it needs to be hammered over and over again.
What right does the Federal Government have to control 90% of Nevada's land? It isn't a matter of "if." I don't care how many people in this country think otherwise.
 
That's so upside down I don't even know where to start.

ETA -

"There have been a lot of people criticizing Clive Bundy because he did not pay his grazing fees for 20 years. The public is also probably wondering why so many other cowboys are supporting Mr. Bundy even though they paid their fees and Clive did not. What you people probably do not realize is that on every rancher's grazing permit it says the following: "You are authorized to make grazing use of the lands, under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management and covered by this grazing permit, upon your acceptance of the terms and conditions of this grazing permit and payment of grazing fees when due." The "mandatory" terms and conditions go on to list the allotment, the number and kind of livestock to be grazed, when the permit begins and ends, the number of active or suspended AUMs (animal units per month), etc. The terms and conditions also list specific requirements such as where salt or mineral supplements can be located, maximum allowable use of forage levels (40% of annual growth), etc., and include a lot more stringent policies that must be adhered to. Every rancher must sign this "contract" agreeing to abide by the TERMS AND CONDITIONS before he or she can make payment. In the early 90s, the BLM went on a frenzy and drastically cut almost every rancher's permit because of this desert tortoise issue, even though all of us ranchers knew that cow and desert tortoise had co-existed for a hundred+ years. As an example, a family friend had his permit cut by 90%. For those of you who are non ranchers, that would be equated to getting your paycheck cut 90%. In 1976 there were approximately 52 ranching permittees in this area of Nevada. Presently, there are 3. Most of these people lost their livelihoods because of the actions of the BLM. Clive Bundy was one of these people who received extremely unfair and unreasonable TERMS AND CONDITIONS.

Keep in mind that Mr. Bundy was required to sign this contract before he was allowed to pay. Had Clive signed on the dotted line, he would have, in essence, signed his very livelihood away. And so Mr. Bundy took a stand, not only for himself, but for all of us. He refused to be destroyed by a tyrannical federal entity and to have his American liberties and freedoms taken away. Also keep in mind that all ranchers financially paid dearly for the forage rights those permits allow - - not rights to the land, but rights to use the forage that grows on that land. Many of these AUMS are water based, meaning that the rancher also has a vested right (state owned, not federal) to the waters that adjoin the lands and allow the livestock to drink. These water rights were also purchased at a great price. If a rancher cannot show beneficial use of the water (he must have the appropriate number of livestock that drinks and uses that water), then he loses that water right. Usually water rights and forage rights go hand in hand. Contrary to what the BLM is telling you, they NEVER compensate a rancher for the AUMs they take away. Most times, they tell ranchers that their AUMS are "suspended," but not removed. Unfortunately, my family has thousands of "suspended" AUMs that will probably never be returned. And so, even though these ranchers throughout the course of a hundred years invested thousands(and perhaps millions) of dollars and sacrificed along the way to obtain these rights through purchase from others, at a whim the government can take everything away with the stroke of a pen. This is the very thing that Clive Bundy single handedly took a stand against. Thank you, Clive, from a rancher who considers you a hero."

I have a difficult time getting behind a multimillionaire rancher (Cliven Bundy) who inherited a lot of his wealth, as well as getting wealth through Federal Subsidies not only through massive government agriculture programs, but grazing and water use of public lands, which in fact he stopped paying all together. So in fact he is like a welfare queen who is mad that they aren't getting enough free things, had his day in court and lost and now refuses to comply at the barrel of his gun to the legal order. That seems like the opposite of Libertarian principles to me ...

In addition, he put all those men, women and children's safety at risk to protect his fortune, for his greed, who largely thought they were doing the right thing and standing up for a cause and freedom. Yes, the BLM agents showed up armed, but they are just enforcing the multiple court orders that we in a civilized society strive to live by (rules and laws). Bundy needs to take his issues to court if he thinks he has a real legal standing, essentially he is stealing with the literal barrel of his gun.

If you really want to get behind Cliven Bundy, then you have to say the Federal Government doesn't exist, so we live in anarchy and is that really what people around here think? If you have ever voted for Ron Paul or a liberty candidate, then you have to admit to the system and you are trying to change it. This situation is just anarchy. Look what happened to Wesley Snipes when he went to jail over not paying his taxes, do the oath keepers and Cliven support him?
http://marquee.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/19/wesley-snipes-ordered-to-jail-on-tax-charges/
 
Last edited:
In addition, he put all those men, women and children's safety at risk to protect his fortune, for his greed, who largely thought they were doing the right thing and standing up for a cause and freedom. Yes, the BLM agents showed up armed, but they are just enforcing the multiple court orders that we in a civilized society strive to live by (rules and laws). Bundy needs to take his issues to court if he thinks he has a real legal standing, essentially he is stealing with the literal barrel of his gun.

King's Land, King's Grant, King's Court...c'mon, you're just trolling now.

So, who is the "perfect" victim of government oppression that "we" should coalesce around?
 
Back
Top