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

Just like you're too lazy to provide a link. Q.E.D.

 

Ah, the old K1A "you do my research for me" ploy. No greater proof of insecurity about your "facts" needed.

 

Why should we dig through 36 pages to find a non-existent quote, why not just produce the quote for us since you're so sure about it?

 

You shouldn't. This topic is apparently So Very Important to you that you don't even remember half of the facts. The quote is there. You and I even exchanged posts about it, and you don't remember that. If you really cared about the topic and weren't just trying to suck up to Castle, you'd have found it in less time than it took you to type Post #726.

Then again, you still don't know the difference between a turtle and a tortoise.

 

Meh, this is why I just ignore the prevaricating old bitch. She's got three moves:

1. Lie
2. Evade
3. Distort

That's her arsenal, right there, from soup to nuts.

 

Last 3pages suggests Castle, Captain moonshine and Oldfella on the same side.

That in itself should be enough to throw weight to the alternative arguament.

#brainstrust!

 

VRR: What Castle really means is "This is how I try to distract people from my complete lack of supporting data: lie, evade, and distort. I'm a bad person."

 

Ridiculously ironic post is ridiculously ironic.

 

You can't produce a quote because none exists. Nobody has said anything about these women being forced to be human shields.

 

That's right. Nobody has. If your plan is to move the goal posts, you need to be less obvious about it.

What I said - and I provided the quote from Richard Mack to that effect (and the reason you don't want to go back and look for it is because at the time you mistakenly thought he was on the Feds' side and, when shown your mistake, you flitted out of the thread) - is that Mack was willing to "volunteer" his wife, but no one had heard her say anything about it.

None of you can provide a quote from the person ostensibly willing to stand in front of these cowards in what they perceive to be a life-threatening situation.

When you can do that, let me know.

Tell you what: I just "volunteered" you to write a 3,000-word essay on the difference between a turtle and a tortoise.

By your logic, you'd be okay with that.

 

There is a difference between ironic and pathetic. Sure, John Castle sometimes seems to blur the line, but that effort of his was clearly on the pathetic side of the line. For it to be ironic he'd actually have to have some inkling of what the words "lie," "evade," and "distort" actually mean.

 

You want us to provide a quote that doesn't exist. You are suggesting that these women would be forced at gunpoint to stand in the line if fire. We're suggesting that that likely would not be the case, the women would probably volunteer themselves. Your outrage is focused on the human shields, so let's try this one more time. There's a Mexican standoff between "human shields" and the Feds, the Feds fire first, and massacre the "human shields", whoa are the bad guys?

 

And you clearly don't know it, or you'd skip the "personal observations." Bare minimum, you'd use them as flair on a body of substantive posts, but you haven't got the brains or the balls to do it that way. Personal attacks make for fine spice, but when they are all you've got, you ain't got shit.

 

Y'know, there's clearly no point in asking them this question, at this point. They've all provided ample demonstration that they are incapable of taking the side of the people over that of the State. They are so devoid of spine, so bereft of fortitude, that they have devoted themselves, heart and soul, to Stockholm Syndrome in a pathetic attempt to cloak their own cowardice in jingoism, and they will snarl and fight like wolverines to keep that cloak wrapped just as tight as they can.

That's the most amusing thing -- take Liet for example -- he's got that "bumper sticker" in his signature that says, "I support Jingoistic cliches" -- but what his posts make painfully evident is that his use of that phrase actually isn't ironic -- he really does mean it. He just doesn't know that he means it.

 

Only if you love the taste of government issued boot leather. Do ya?

 

You'd think so -- but, of course, you're a fucking idiot. See, you're playing to the crowd -- which would be fine, if the potential crowd supported your cowardly, bootlicking position. Studies have been showing, increasingly, that it doesn't.

As a leftie, you no doubt love the phrase, "the right side of history."

Well, ol' son, look at the research -- you aren't on it. People all over the world, from millennials outward foreward and back, are turning against the criminal syndicates commonly called governments. Simpering bootlickers like you are in a rapidly dwindling minority of pussy-dom. 'bout time you got right with the world and stopped supporting Fascism. Oh, I completely understand that you haven't got the testicular fortitude to actively oppose it -- but you're not doing yourself any favors by actively supporting it.

 

Exactly. Mrs. Mack has not said anything. Took you long enough.

 

"Nerrrr, terrrk yer lerrrng ernerrrf!"

And yet it's taking you even longer to produce anything. But please do continue to act all smug in the complete absence of any reason to.

 

But even without a "Human Shield", the Feds didn't fire first, so the notion that they would be more likely to open fire when a "Human Shield" was in position is, well, just plain stupid, particularly when it has been repeatedly stated "It's wrong for anyone to shoot an unarmed human being."

Do you really not know what "anyone" means?

 

Most intelligent thing you've ever posted.

 

And yet your whole bitch about the potential for anyone in that scenario to be "used as a human shield" is predicated on the idea that that person would get shot. By the Feds. So your whole fucking bitch is predicated on innocent people getting shot, yet you utterly refuse to countenance the laying of blame at the feet of those who would -- in the only scenario where you get to bitch at all -- be the ones doing the shooting.

"Eaaaagghhhh!!! Those wicked, wicked civilians were gonna use their women as human shields!"
"Who would have shot them?"
"NNAAAAAAAAWWWWHHHHHRRRRRGGHHHHH!!! I WON'T ANSWER THAT ONE, RRRAAWWWRRRRGGHHHH!!!"

Fuckin' whatever, fascist.

 

When you see a direct question do you just instantly duck. When you go to McDonalds and they ask if you want fries with that, do you just walk away? How do you go through life with the inability to answer any question? You get pulled over, "mam, do you know how fast you were going?" You reply, "do you know the difference between a turtle and a tortoise?" I just don't see how you can function like that.

 

If she's placed her order multiple times, and the person at the counter stupidly does what you're doing, and pretends to have not caught her order/answer for the the tenth time or so, and once again asks for her order, I'm guessing she probable does just walk away.

 

This has been answered several times; 7 times by me, several more by garamet and others. You alternate between claiming it hasn't been answered, and ascribing the opposite of our answers to us. Is there any reason whatsoever why any of us should try again?

And no, I don't actually expect you to answer that, either, I'm just hoping despite all rational expectation.

 

What part of "It's wrong for anyone to shoot an unarmed human being" is it that you blithering asshats don't understand?

 

Almost there. Needs more four letter words and some smileys. But you've just about got it.

 

Yeah....and your point is......?

Sheriff Bo Diddly is an idiot. If Mrs. Diddly wants to volunteer to be target practice, she's an even bigger idiot.

Now, if Sheriff Diddly is dragging her by her hair kicking & screaming to the front line with a bullseye on her chest, that's a different matter.

 

So if you agree that he Feds would be the bad guys in that scenario, then why the outrage over the human shields? If the women prevent a massacre and the Feds back off in that scenario, then they've done a good job and the strategy worked and they prevented a gun fight. You should not be outraged at the human shields, you should be outraged at the Feds with sniper rifles pointed at their heads.

ETA: I guess back in the day you would have been okay with Alexander Hamilton and Washington charging into the backwoods of Mass. to force a few poor farmers to pay the whiskey tax?

 

So we're agreed, then, that the Feds were/are the actual villains of this story?

 

I wonder if any of the Outrage Crowd here were the ones cheering when the Israeli tank ran over that protesting girl and crushed her? Or does gun vs. tank make a difference here? And does the side youvre picked to support mitigate the slaughter of an unarmed protestor?