Another Ruby Ridge/Waco event brewing - Page 32 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

aklim · #**466** 04-21-2014, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

I believe you missed the point. The government need not wait for Bundy to move his herd.
All they need to do is do what they already have made a practice of doing---taking bank accounts.
No need for armed military responses--just take his money to settle the debt.

You ever tried garnishment of wages or putting a line on the account? It isn't really that simple as it sounds

INSIDIOUS · #**467** 04-21-2014, 01:12 PM

I wonder if he has been claiming a tax deduction for grazing fees? He woes over $million to date, that could be an issue.

INSIDIOUS · #**468** 04-21-2014, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Galt

"a lot of Americans were surprised to see TV images of an armed-to-the-teeth paramilitary wing of the BLM deployed around Bundy’s ranch."
"The proliferation of paramilitary federal SWAT teams inevitably brings abuses that have nothing to do with either drugs or terrorism. Many of the raids they conduct are against harmless, often innocent, Americans who typically are accused of non-violent civil or administrative violations. "

Please explain your post. Do YOU have something to say? This looks like you are just quoting something else with no link?

INSIDIOUS · #**469** 04-21-2014, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Galt

Quote:

Regardless of how people feel about Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy’s standoff with the federal Bureau of Land Management over his cattle’s grazing rights, a lot of Americans were surprised to see TV images of an armed-to-the-teeth paramilitary wing of the BLM deployed around Bundy’s ranch. They shouldn’t have been. Dozens of federal agencies now have Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) teams to further an expanding definition of their missions. It’s not controversial that the Secret Service and the Bureau of Prisons have them. But what about the Department of Agriculture, the Railroad Retirement Board, the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Office of Personnel Management, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? All of these have their own SWAT units and are part of a worrying trend towards the militarization of federal agencies — not to mention local police forces. “Law-enforcement agencies across the U.S., at every level of government, have been blurring the line between police officer and soldier,” journalist Radley Balko writes in his 2013 book Rise of the Warrior Cop. “The war on drugs and, more recently, post-9/11 antiterrorism efforts have created a new figure on the U.S. scene: the warrior cop — armed to the teeth, ready to deal harshly with targeted wrongdoers, and a growing threat to familiar American liberties.” The proliferation of paramilitary federal SWAT teams inevitably brings abuses that have nothing to do with either drugs or terrorism. Many of the raids they conduct are against harmless, often innocent, Americans who typically are accused of non-violent civil or administrative violations.

The United States of SWAT? | National Review Online

Another quote with no comment? I'll comment for you. regards "his cattle’s grazing rights" Cattle have no rights.

davidmash · #**470** 04-21-2014, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skid Row Joe

Federal agencies went out-of-control under the free reign of leftists Obama and Clinton - anything goes. Shoot to kill. This is no surprise what is happening.

Who was President Aug 21, 1992?

MS Fowler · #**471** 04-21-2014, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

You ever tried garnishment of wages or putting a line on the account? It isn't really that simple as it sounds

Its not about little ole me trying to garnish wages. m Its the freakin' FEDERAL government--they do it all the time.
They even confiscated tax refunds from relatives who owed--it must not be too hard for them!

cmbdiesel · #**472** 04-21-2014, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

I believe you missed the point. The government need not wait for Bundy to move his herd.
All they need to do is do what they already have made a practice of doing---taking bank accounts.
No need for armed military responses--just take his money to settle the debt.

And that gets the cattle off the land, how...??

Txjake · #**473** 04-21-2014, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidmash

Who was President Aug 21, 1992?

It is not about the President, per se: it is about the permanant ruling junta in DC. The professional political feds who run the day to day operations year after year.

P.C. · #**474** 04-21-2014, 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

Its not about little ole me trying to garnish wages. m Its the freakin' FEDERAL government--they do it all the time.
They even confiscated tax refunds from relatives who owed--it must not be too hard for them!

Do you think that a self-employed rancher is receiving a W-2 each year? Can't garnish wages without an employer.

engatwork · #**475** 04-21-2014, 05:41 PM

Wonder if the cows have social security numbers?

Botnst · #**476** 04-21-2014, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by P.C.

No you're not. They see this whacko as some sort of wild west pioneer hero because this travesty is occurring west of the Mississippi, and a cow is involved.

You guys inadvertently have chosen to ignore the greater point of militarized federal police to concentrate on an argument nobody has given -- supporting the perp's lawbreaking.

Botnst · #**477** 04-21-2014, 06:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim B.

My recollection was that all this military equipment was actually FUNDED by the LEAA ("Law Enforcement Assistance Administration") that was given a budget allotment for all this SWAT (Special Weapons and Tactics") crap for local law enforcement.

If you worked for ANY branch of the Government, and knew anything about department budgets, you'd know that if you were given ANY amount of money in the budget for anything, SOP was that you'd better SPEND ALL of it;

Otherwise, you are running the risk of getting less or nothing - even if you needed it badly, the NEXT fiscal year.

***

And for Pete's sake, leave partisanship (laying the blame at Clinton's and Obama's feet PERSONALLY for this) out of this, won't you please? That has gotten really really tiresome and old.

My recollection is that the LEAA got started, and got tons of $$$ to dole out, when Ronald Reagan - the darling of the Republican Right - was President.

IMO the blame transcends partisan politics, no need to throw that kind of thing into the mix.

It's SOP that Government agencies want to keep getting more money for their budgets: whether it's needed or appropriate or fiscally sound is basically irrelevant to them.

I - a retired Govt. employee, personally know that for a fact. I witnessed it and actually heard the actual words spoken! The waste of tax dollars like that is unspeakable... I hope you agree.

Exactly right.

Botnst · #**478** 04-21-2014, 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmbdiesel

They have been waiting for years to see the cattle taken off the disputed lands...
Bundy was not decreasing the size of the herd.
That's why BLM came for the cattle.
Then Bundy escalated the issue into an armed resistance of the implementation of the court order.

I don't think anyone holds the opinion that things couldn't have been handled better, but slamming BLM for their reaction to armed resistance without acknowledging that a very large part of the responsibility lies with Bundy is not a well reasoned position.

I don't know of anybody who believes that Bundy is the good guy.

If you choose to read what most reasonable people have written that superficially appears to support Bundy, you might trouble yourself to note that very few actually do. Instead, most of the ire is directed (rightly, IMO) at the extremely dangerous federal over-reaction.

As Jorn has previously argued, this has been going on for many years concerning the War on Drugs fiasco. I completely agree with him.

You and I may not be drug runners or over-grazers of cattle. What are the chances you and I have never violated federal law? Think it would be unreasonable for the IRS to show up at your home with a squad of heavily armed agents to enforce the law?

If wet let the gov do it to the least of us eventually they will do it to us.

Dudesky · #**479** 04-21-2014, 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jorn

Thank Homeland Security for the free flow of money to militarize every single police force in America. Now with two wars coming to an end there is going to be another flow of high end capacity weaponry coming to your local Sheriff and police department. We can only blame our selves.

Didn't Barry want a national police force similar in size and capability to the military?

There's the gazillion bullet purchases.

MTI · #**480** 04-21-2014, 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

You guys inadvertently have chosen to ignore the greater point of militarized federal police to concentrate on an argument nobody has given -- supporting the perp's lawbreaking.

When you brandish the term "militarized federal police" . . . are you suggesting that any law enforcement agency be limited as to what resources to utilize in any situation? In my neck of the woods, we have a sheriffs department that owns a tank and an armored personnel carrier . . . and Steven Segal.