So nothing about this? Feds engage in cattle rustling, assault, in Nevada

You're not cynical enough; by that standard at least 95% of all threads and real life discussions regarding opposing viewpoints amount to a complete waste of time. Fortunately, understanding differing views and clarifying your own reasoning in your own mind are fine standards and much more readily achievable. Even base amusement isn't a complete waste of time. And, of course, there is always the possibility of teaching something to observers and questioners who haven't formed solid beliefs yet.

Can't disagree with any of that. But those are the reasons for which I specified "90%" regarding this thread, rather than the totality. I might disagree with you severely on some issue, and yet have a more or less rational conversation about it. Even though it is highly likely that both of us would go away with exactly the same opinion as when we started, any or all of the factors you mention might come into play.

But that is not the case in this thread. Not even close.

The real Cliven Bundy:

“I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro,” he said. Mr. Bundy recalled driving past a public-housing project in North Las Vegas, “and in front of that government house the door was usually open and the older people and the kids — and there is always at least a half a dozen people sitting on the porch — they didn’t have nothing to do. They didn’t have nothing for their kids to do. They didn’t have nothing for their young girls to do.

“And because they were basically on government subsidy, so now what do they do?” he asked. “They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom.”
----------------
It should come as no surprise that a man nostalgic for the theft of human beings also lauds the theft of government property.

^ Now that is a classic, textbook example of an ad hominem argument. Fortunately, even though the "argument" is totally invalid, I know enough about logic not to let it sway me into supporting him on the issue in question in this thread, because I am persuaded he is wrong on that, too.

But your post is still a blatant ad hominem fallacy.

You might have skipped large parts of this thread -- and I wouldn't blame you for that -- but several posters here have declared Bundy a hero, in very general terms. In addition, they have claimed that we don't know anything about his views on women. On both points, Liet's post is completely topical.

You can play the "offended" card all you like, but you're not addressing any of the points he's making. And no, claiming that he isn't making any points is not sufficient. You have to demonstrate that he's not making any points. You have to show that he's wrong about the prevalence of government dependence in that community. You have to show that he's wrong about the higher abortion rate. You have to short that he's wrong about the higher incarceration rate.

Here's the problem: you can't. Because he's not wrong.

So make him wrong. Address that community. Reform that community. Make him wrong.

I also think it's amusing that you feel the need to dig back into the guy's past to make him look the villain to justify Federal villainy. Shows that you'll go to any extreme, however tenuous, to justify your brainless, spineless adoration of the State.

Ok, that's just too easy. Fish, barrel.

Um, not his past. He said it this week. And it's not the statement about abortion stats and welfare, it's his statement about slavery -- that blacks would be better off as slaves. It's not Liet's responsibility to do anything other than point out that it was said. It is Bundy's responsibility (and his proxies) to explain why such a thing would be better.

Throughout the Western United States, ranchers graze their cattle on Federal Land,
which is maintained by the Bureau of Land Management.
They don't pay taxes on that land, and they don't claim it as their own.

The parcel mentioned here is 600,000 acres,.
That's almost 1,000 square miles. 30 miles by 30 miles. Bigger than some counties.

The BLM hires local residents to clear brush, dirt and rock from streams and trails,
build and maintain stream crossings, control predators and invasive vegetation;
and to perform various other activities that facilitate the practice of grazing cattle on the land.

Also irrelevant.

No it's not because it has nothing to do with the BLM and their land grab.

Ah, so superfluous issues aren't so important now? Welcome to the position the rest of us have held throughout this thread. So, now it is finally time for some questions.

• Should a landlord have the ability to collect rent?
• When a tenant refuses to pay, can a landlord (after due process) evict?
• If the tenant refuses to vacate, can forceful eviction be justified?

Answer these, and then we can discuss whether people are known by the company they keep. Right now, I suspect Rand Paul is wishing he hadn't planted his flag with Bundy. How about you?

So your fallback is "But Mussolini keeps the trains running on time."

All of those questions presume that the Feds are the "landlord." They're not.

If you "buy" a car with zero money down and never pay a dime of your own money for it, do you own the car? Or does the bank own it? The Feds bought that land with the people's money, not their own. They don't own it. So if the people want to evict Bundy's cattle, the people can -- the Feds have no legitimate claim to that authority, since they never paid a dime for the land out of their own pockets.

Which is what they're doing.

And that's really where this thread should have ended on page 2. Continuing it despite reason just lead inexorably into justifications for turning women into human shields, and forcing the "Negro community" (sic!) back into slavery. Looking back now, we really should have known.

Exactly. Bundy is in no way, shape, or form, a hero. He's a hardcore entitled bigot, which on it's own is enough reason not to call him a hero. However, this being the world we live in, that also provides the nail in the coffin when it comes to the legitimacy of his anti-federal-government beliefs. Anyone who thinks that Bundy's bigotry and his belief in the illegitimacy of the federal government aren't intimately connected hasn't been paying attention.

But the good news is, we can reduce any and all Castle threads to "taxation is theft" and "the government is not the people" and "because fuck you, that's why," and treat them accordingly from now on.

Which is precisely the appeal to the hardcore bigot and his acolyte in this forum. They aspire to the "entitled" part, and figure by the likes of Bundy they'll get to be him when they grow up.

No, they're not. And as has been established via studies, no less, the Feds do not represent the people any longer.

Yeah. I'm not going a 21st round on that with you; you'd probably end up arguing in favour of cannibalism.

On a side note, please do compare Castle's treatment of "ebonics" with his treatment of Cliven Bundy's utter butchery of the English language.

You appear to be arguing from a position of right versus wrong rather than from the standpoint of legal versus not legal. For good or bad, right and wrong aren't in play here and a discussion about those issues is fine and could be interesting, but you have to acknowledge that it is merely an academic exercise. I say that because what is right and what is wrong hasn't been in play since, well, ever when it comes to politics. Dating back to the dawn of human government, everything has been about what is legal and what is not legal. That, once again, is what is playing out before us now.

The old cliche is that you can't beat the police on the street, you can only beat the police in City Hall. That is true for many reasons, but I think the most important is that you can't change policy at the ground level. Policy has to be changed from the top down. Taking your battle for right and against wrong to the legislature may get you somewhere. But, arguing right and wrong with someone holding a court order is just a bunch of fruitless whining that will get you no where and is a waste of everyone's time. I'm seeing very little of the former and a whole lot of the latter.

From being entitled enough to not pay grazing fees when everyone else does, to having meetings about using women as human shields to openly wondering if black people would be better off as slaves. This guy is amazing.

I'm eagerly anticipating his encore and for John Castle to ramp up his support.

The two questions I asked you (and anyone else reading) were completely hypothetical in nature. They do not require additional input from or about Mack's wife or anyone else.

This part will be glorious! What will Hannity say? How will Castle derp it? In what way will Fedral Farmer badly parrot the talking points? This opens an entire new realm of hilarity!

Here's a question: is it a cowardly thing to hide behind human shields in order to get out of paying a bill that you yourself incurred?

Everyone else does? Who is "everyone else" after the BLM hiked the fees to unaffordable levels to drive "everyone else" off the land so they could grab it?

Yes. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that I support the use of human shields, and/or in support of Bundy. That doesn't mean I'm not curious about what you consider to be right or wrong in regards to human shields being gunned down by Federal agents.

What "treatment" are you referring to?