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

Such as any form of "authority."

So guns, then.

Really? That's your answer?

Why not apply that to all walks of life then?

I swear, if I hadn't already seen pictures of you as the poorly aging runt with the Jabba the Hutt neck that you are, going by your posts I'd think you were just some 20 year old kid with no real life experience.

No, here's my answer:



And now you must be silent, for you is nowt but a bowl of rotten clam chowdaaaahhhhhh!

Ya want a nonstop litany of costumed fuckballs getting away with thuggery in the name of the State?

Here. Read it. Understand it.

If you're just joining us, here's the score so far:

In order to support his views, Castle has had to adopt the position that using human shields is noble, the "Negro community" would be better off as slaves, cannibalism is good, guns are bad, and any enforcement of law is evil and should therefore be forbidden by law.

Also, if you're just joining us, you're clearly making a major mistake.

And as an incredibly transparent (not to mention transparently feeble) attempt to discredit my views, you've had to resort to distorting them and then failing to attempt to rebut even your own distorted version. You know you're in a piss poor position when you have to set up a strawman... and then can't even take the strawman on.

That there's an obvious point I'm driving at which you're desperately trying to avoid.

Hint: If you want to make a point, don't spend ten pages hiding it. Spell it out.

No distortion and no strawman, but I'll readily admit I didn't take the trouble to show why cannibalism, slavery, and the abandonment of all laws are bad. Nor am I going to.

The only thing obvious about your posts in this thread is your unfounded and bizarre belief that anyone's advocating shooting unarmed civilians.

Well, except for BD and Muslims, but (A) he hasn't posted in this thread and (B) he prefers bombing.

Where you got this notion is something that might be worth examining, since you'll find no support for it here.

Every day I dip my toes into this thread and read a little. The ignorance on display quickly dries up my interest.

Goodness, are you all still talking about Cliven Bundy? He's soooooooo 7 days ago.

Now we're on to Donald Sterling and the Clippers.

That seems to be the implication from some of you. I doubt any of you would admit that the Feds shooting unarmed protestors would be wrong, and that you'd be far more interested in blaming the protestors. Since you're all too cowardly to address it one way or the other, I guess I'll jut have to assume that's the case, and that you're too ashamed to admit as much in front of others.

Based on nothing of substance, because if there were, you'd be able to show it.

What, you mean like any given post you make against others? What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Yes, exactly the way I link to others' posts to prove my point.

Why are you incapable of doing that?

Sure you do, all the time. And you never ever misrepresent what people have said, and you certainly never just put words into peoples' mouths.

See, this is exactly what I'm talking about. You're playing "Oh, look, shiny!" because you have nothing of substance.

If you were able to find even one instance of anyone here - anyone of any political leaning - saying what you claim, you'd have done so, several days and several pages ago.

Last chance before you're assigned to the VisionRazor Rule along with Castle and FF. Put up or shut up.

You're really one to talk.

On the contrary, I've made a logical deduction based on your unwillingness to answer a question which would require you to admit that the Fed would be wrong in doing something.

Actually, that'd be the garamet rule, which you without fail refuse to follow when called on it.

Yep, VRR.

If you do have a problem with the Feds shooting innocent people, then why bitch about human shields? Why are they the villains and not the Feds? Why even bitch about a strategy that never even took place? Is it because you don't want to discuss Harry Reid's involvement or the BLM's corruption or Harry Reid calling a constitutionally legal militia's domestic terrorists or what? What is it that you are trying to distract us from, what are you afraid? What is your boogeyman?

I have a constitutional aversion to cowardice.

How're you doing on the turtle vs. tortoise thing?

Any woman who would allow herself to be lined up by Bo Diddly Sheriff and mowed down as a human shield is too fucking stupid to live anyway and deserves her fate.

I would expect that kind of blind obedience from the Duggar daughters, bred as surrogate mothers for their younger siblings that Momma doesn't have time to raise as she's still acting as broodmare for Joe Bob

So then you're neither outraged by women volunteering to act as human shields nor by the villainy of Federal agents mowing down innocent people. Guess all that leaves is you bein' outraged that the peasantry would defy their "rulers", dunnit?

The only woman we've heard from is Mrs. Bundy, who's itchin' to take her shotgun out there and show them Feds a thing or three.

So, not an unarmed human shield.

None of you can seem to find a quote from Mrs. Mack or any of the others saying they'll gladly stand in front of their man.

And where's your quote from the menfolk about holding guns to their sweethearts' heads and makin' 'em do it when they don't wanna?

Q.v. Richard Mack's quote upthread.

Your turn.

Naturally, you don't actually quote it. It probably doesn't say what I just intimated it would need to say in order to support your position, does it? Good reason for you to fail to quote it.

Naturally, you're so devoted to your "cause" you're too lazy to look for it.

Now, do the Captain X thing and spend three pages mischaracterizing my posts because you can't find any support anywhere for your assumption that the women are willing participants.

And...go!