[smoothy]

No different than Hannity or Limbaugh.

Really?. exactly what things are they funding with their billions of dollars exactly?

[smoothy]

That's correct. But, if past performance is any indication, we'll be waiting a long time.

WHy shoud I prove anything... you haven't proved your claims at all via a source that's not so obviously biased.

[paraclete]

this debate is going in circles, restating the same "facts" doesn't make them true or pertinent. Bundy has the course of legal action open to him, but the government has the ability to change the rules. A lease is a right to use, it does not confer permanent use and usually you cannot be compensated for leasehold improvements. If you break the terms of a lease by failing to pay the lease fee, this terminates the lease. Surely 20 years of stuffing about is enough latitude

[smoothy]

this debate is going in circles, restating the same "facts" doesn't make them true or pertinent. Bundy has the course of legal action open to him, but the government has the ability to change the rules. A lease is a right to use, it does not confer permanent use and usually you cannot be compensated for leasehold improvements. If you break the terms of a lease by failing to pay the lease fee, this terminates the lease. Surely 20 years of stuffing about is enough latitude

WHen you've been doing it openly for well over 20+ years... and nobody says or does anything... that becomes a prescriptive rights issue. And he stands a really good chance of winning on that basis.

http://www.dcclothesline.com/2014/04...defense-court/

[paraclete]

Good Luck with that, a quick piece of retrospective legislation will extinguish his "rights", he is afterall one person,

[tomder55]

Most other litigants would have filed a lien on the property, which would get satisfied when the property is sold or inherited.. Instead the government sent in the jackboots. The fact is that the Bundy family purchased grazing and surface water rights to the land in perpetuity in the 1880s, long before BLM existed. It was Bundy and the other ranchers who installed wells and irrigation , fencing, cattle guards,,built access roads etc. ,and maintained and worked the land.

[tomder55]

Prescriptive easements are common in this country . My driveway goes through my neighbor's property .I can't claim the property as my own ,but he can't prevent me from driving on it .

[Tuttyd]

WHy shoud I prove anything... you haven't proved your claims at all via a source that's not so obviously biased.

You should because the quote provided is one of the worst examples of quote mining seen here for a long time.

The source is irrelevant in this case because it contains the quote in context-- as opposed to the mined quote.

[tomder55]

I think not . The fact that domestic agencies have purchased unprecedented amts of assault weapons and ammo....and the fact that we've documented a number of recent cases where these weapons have been deployed against civilians ,leads one to believe that the intent of that quote has more to do with our interpretation.

[NeedKarma]

You've proven neither. I doubt your interpretation is better that the original speaker's actual words. Ideology will make you see something that isn't there to further your own beliefs.

[Tuttyd]

You've proven neither. I doubt your interpretation is better that the original speaker's actual words. Ideology will make you see something that isn't there to further your own beliefs.

That's correct.


Tom's response has nothing to do with quote mining. It changes nothing in relation to the two quotes provided. In fact, "our interpretation" is a pretty good definition of quote mining.

[smoothy]

Harry Reids slide into senility continues at a rapid place.

Harry Reid Calls Cliven Bundy Supporters “Domestic Terrorists� |

He'll be drooling and wearing diapers soon if he's not already.

[smoothy]

And more proof the Federal Government and the Dept of injustice and the BLM or out of control...

http://www.dcclothesline.com/2014/04...aries-hit-men/

Paid hitmen (murderers for hire) who aren't even law enforcement people.

[tomder55]

what is out of content is the 2 sentences in relation to the rest of the emperor's address about volunteerism . Take off your blinders. What do those sentences mean in relation to expanding community service opportunities for Americans ? Nothing ...it was an off teleprompter moment when his true thoughts were revealed.
(here is the prepared text of the speech . Those lines were added in a candid moment revealing his real intent . Text of Obama's speech : DNC 2008 : The Rocky Mountain News )

[smoothy]

You should because the quote provided is one of the worst examples of quote mining seen here for a long time.

The source is irrelevant in this case because it contains the quote in context-- as opposed to the mined quote.

Typical liberal... they rant away... but refuse to offer any real proof on their own ( and when they do its from a ultra left wing source, usually funded by Soros)... but expect everyone else to do it.

[Tuttyd]

Typical liberal... they rant away... but refuse to offer any real proof on their own ( and when they do its from a ultra left wing source, usually funded by Soros)... but expect everyone else to do it.

What part of the ad hominiem fallacy are you having problems with understanding smoothy? The source is irrelevant to the truth or falsity of a claim. The test comes by way of analysis of what is being said.

[Tuttyd]

what is out of content is the 2 sentences in relation to the rest of the emperor's address about volunteerism . Take off your blinders. What do those sentences mean in relation to expanding community service opportunities for Americans ? Nothing ...it was an off teleprompter moment when his true thoughts were revealed.
(here is the prepared text of the speech . Those lines were added in a candid moment revealing his real intent . Text of Obama's speech : DNC 2008 : The Rocky Mountain News )

Of course it's out of context.It's not for you or "our interpretation" to decide. You cannot sum up a speech of this size with 2 lines. It's the height of ridiculousness.

The relevant 5 or 6 paragraphs are there for everyone to see. Post this, and then provide your interpretations. That's the standard procedure when it comes to academia and quality journalism.

Now that I have read the relevant sections I have an interpretation. I don't need you to tell me how I should be interpreting a speech.

[smoothy]

Obama Sends Hundreds of Armed Feds to Nevada – Wouldn’t Send 1 Soldier to Defend Benghazi – Why?

http://www.dcclothesline.com/2014/04/17/obama-sends-hundreds-armed-feds-nevada-wouldnt-send-1-soldier-defend-benghazi/

This speaks volumes about the post smoking cocain snorting tyrant ocupying the white house...

[smoothy]

What part of the ad hominiem fallacy are you having problems with understanding smoothy? The source is irrelevant to the truth or falsity of a claim. The test comes by way of analysis of what is being said.

Reall6y... THe source has EVERYTHING to do about the validity of a claim... case in point... the so-called VIDEO... nobody ever saw... being blamed for Benghazi...

Source was the white house... claim was completely false and fabricated, and proven to be so... yet was still backed up and supported by other left wing hacks who have no regard for facts... they just want to push a falicy on the public..,. something that's been a daily occurrence the last 6 years under Obama on essentially everything, and everyone he has appointed to any position.

ANYTHING connected to scum like Soros and his money is suspect....and in fact needs to be assumed as false unless it can be proven true based on the extensive history of lies and misinformation he and his kind are responsible for.

[NeedKarma]

This speaks volumes

Actually that website you seem to love speaks volumes about your lack of need for facts to believe a story, as long as it fits your agenda. The author is "active white suprema­cist and secessionist sym­pa­thizer" which does indeed fit your agenda.