Balance is always the key....
To my Conservative friends, don't allow your fear of the government to overlook Bundy's failures to follow the law. we claim we are a nation of laws, and he failed to abide by them. There are ways to change bad laws, and they take time, but as long as there is a law that requires payment of a fee, he needed to obey that law. At the very least , he could have paid the disputed fees into an escrow account, and avoided looking like a cheap-skate.

To my Liberal/Progressive friends, don't allow your distaste for Bundy and his gun-totting friends to cause you to overlook the real evil of a government that attacks its citizens with overt military force. What is most suspicious to many is the same government refuses to use the same force against other law-breakers---notably those who, against the laws of this country, enter illegally, or to use that military force to save the lives of US citizens and the Ambassador at the Benghazi attack. Combine that use or misuse use of force with the known ability of the government to lie, and you have a government that makes its citizens fear. That is tyranny.

Was that said anywhere? Did Bundy decide to cooperate peacefully or involve his malatia buddies in his little war? If so, I'm all for them coming in with overwhelming force and wiping them all out and making them an example. OTOH, if it is a simple "You owe, please pay" and they come with an M1 tank, absolutely not.

You have a point, OTOH, this guy has gone somewhat beyond that and has had 20 years to straighten it out. My calculations have it that he has done pretty well grazing his stock on 900 sq. miles of public land. It's not like he couldn't pay.

Armed force is used to prevent people from entering the country illegally. The difficulty arises from the fact that there are so many of them, in so many places, making the attempt 24/7. It's a little like trying to catch all the gnats in a swarm. Not to denigrate them by referring to them as vermin, but the math is similar.

Libya is foreign soil and hostile territory. The send in the marines thing wouldn't have worked. The idea has a bold and inspiring feel to it but the end result would have almost certainly been more trouble and more deaths.

They ARE vermin. Again, the issue is there is little loss. Like the gnats yo talk about, you catch them, release them and they came back. I'd gamble my life savings away if there was a "take back" at the end of the day, IOW, no consequence. I mean, if you have something to gain and nothing to lose, WGAS? OTOH, if you mount a bunch of automated pill boxes there to mow them down if they cross, perhaps it will cause SOME, not all, SOME to have thought.

If I buy something online and that Business is in California the usually take out Tax.
In fact I have bought stuff online from other States and they took out State Tax Claiming they have some Warehouses here in CA.
I have no way of knowing if that collected Tax gets back to CA

If I go to another State or even Mexico and buy something no one is waiting to excise some CA State Tax from me at the State Boarder. If you buy over a certain amount Coustoms will charge you Duty but that is not CA Tax.

Also I know if you own a Retail Store and you Sell Somethng in CA it is the Sellers responsability to get the Sales Tax. If the Seller does not collect the Sales Tax the Seller is required to pay the Sales Tax.

So if I was in Court for not paying Internet Sales Tax I would be sure to bring the above issues up in Court.

Also Bundy's issue is different in that His Land Use Fee is just that and being Business is deductable as a Business Expense. Also He hopefully made a Profit off the Land Use.

Whan someone buys something on eBay and does not report the the amount for Sales Tax that is retaining your own Money and is not the same as making a profit off of BLM Land.

If You are a Land Lord and a Tenant Stays in the Building after the Eviction date the Marshal is called to and they are forcibly evicted if needed. The Tenants’ actions decide if the Eviction requires Violence or not.
If a bunch of the Deadbeat Tenants’ Buddies show up with Guns and are pointing them at Police Officers the Buddies actions are also deciding if the situation is going to require Violence.

For Myself when People start pointing Guns at Anyone but themselves and warnings do not stop Them it is time for the Law to be allowed to do whatever is needed to stop Them.

In more peaceful situations a goodly number of the Liberal/Progressives are worried about the Common Man owning a Gun and have claimed that the Common Man owning a Gun endangers themselves and People living in the same Household with the Gun.
But, now it is OK for those same irresponsible Common Men to pull the Guns on Law Enforcement?
Could it be that Liberal/Progressives don’t really trust anyone.

I'm OK with guys pulling guns on LEO. AS LONG AS they understand that their lives can be forfeit. If you pulled a deadly weapon on me, just expect that I will not aim to wound.

How did this turn into a discussion about taxes? Bundy didn't fail to pay his taxes. He failed to pay rent. If I have a tenant who fails to pay rent, I take them to court and get a judgment against them. Then an armed sheriff shows up to evict them. It happens every day in every city and county in the country. How is Bundy's case any different than any of those? If a bunch of my non-rent-paying tenant's friends showed up on eviction day with guns, I'm sure the sheriff would respond in kind.

Some idolize the guy and others don't. His supporters need Red HerringS (Plural) to find a reason to support his actions.

Stock the Rio Grande River with Piranhas and Alligators?:D

This is not a respons to Alkim I just picked this thread to vent:

US Small Businesses are the most frequent Employers of Illegal Immigrants.

Illegal Immigrants come to the US with very little and have to buy that stuff here and that is good for Business.

Unions want to organize Illegal Immigrants and that could give Illegal Immigrants a more Powerful Lobby in Government.


Small Businesses are the largest supporters of the Democratic Party.
The Democratic Party is the one that most favors the Illegal Immigrant Party.

The Democratic Part is the Party that wants the Government to Expand Social Services (aka Welfare, free Medical to the Poor so on) and wants Tax Payers Money to do that. The majority of the Illegal Immigrants arrive here Poor.

Conspiracy Theory; the Democratic Party wants to use Tax Payer Money to sponsor part of the lively hood of Illegal Immigrants and attract more to come to the US.
The Deomcratic Party pushes to have the Illegal Immigrants decriminalized so they can become Citizens in the hopes that after supplying them with Services paid by the Tax Payer they will be come Voters for the Democratic Party.
In short fill the Country with potential Voters for the Democratic Part at the Tax Payer expense.

Anyone that opposes the above is deemed a Politically Incorrect Racist, Red Neck or what ever other trem is fancied.

It is a chance to "stick it to the Man" in relative safety.

No one likes paying the Government anything. No matter what the Government does in this incident it is still going to get criticized.

Never understood that mentality myself. I'll bet they are the first to grumble when the side effect of that sticking comes back to bite them.

I agree. I don't myself especially when there are a bunch of things going on that I don't like. Unfortunately, there are always going to be things someone doesn't like no matter how good a government is. Maybe that is why they invented religion.

If I don't pay a legally owed debt, and it's gone to the point where a "sheriffs sale" is duly ordered, I would not be surprised if the sheriff showed up, to do his duty, armed and with sufficient back up as reasonably necessary. If what they were coming to seize from me posed a risk of injury or harm, I would expect that they would be prepared for such a situation.

Does the state or federal government send a federal employee or agent to a house on April 16th? No, they don't. They don't even send one out on April 16th, the next year . . .

So, what's the point your trying to make, again?

I remember pointing out to some Conservatives during the Bush years that G. W. Bush was using fear to intimidate the Episcopal Church via the IRS. The overwhelming response was "Who cares if they love me as long as they fear me" and that we, as citizens, should fear our government when we oppose it because Republicans can do no wrong. I was told the source of this bit of wisdom was Rush Limbaugh but who really knows? One thing was for sure: They thought it was the gospel truth and that if I was afraid of the government then I must have a good reason to be afraid and it was my own fault and maybe I should take a little better care of myself and blah, blah, blah......

But now when the government causes citizens to fear it that is tyranny? When did this take place? Are Conservatives aware of this change in their position?