Bundy vs U.S.
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

“Don't let em take ur liberties”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#1 Apr 29, 2014
What can Republicans do to defuse this situation and make it a non issue? People are up in arms over this situation and it appears the government is up in arms against Bundy. This is not way for our government to act. Snipers in BLM? Are they serious?

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#2 Apr 29, 2014
Did you see this?
http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2014-04-23-B...

Why would you wonder why the government should be armed? Law enforcement is always armed.

Why aren't you instead questioning why civilians would be aiming rifles at law enforcement?
Independent

United States

#4 Apr 29, 2014
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
Did you see this?
http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2014-04-23-B...
Why would you wonder why the government should be armed? Law enforcement is always armed.
Why aren't you instead questioning why civilians would be aiming rifles at law enforcement?
So, Dan.....
Do tell.....
Just how do you know what that rifle is aimed at?
Were you looking down the barrel?
Notice too.....his finger is not on the trigger.
That picture proves nothing.
Take your faux outrage outside and howl at the stars about it.

:^`P

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#5 Apr 30, 2014
Independent wrote:
<quoted text>
So, Dan.....
Do tell.....
Just how do you know what that rifle is aimed at?
Were you looking down the barrel?
Notice too.....his finger is not on the trigger.
That picture proves nothing.
Take your faux outrage outside and howl at the stars about it.
:^`P
Continuing to defend the indefensible.

Why do you hate America? Why?
Independent

United States

#7 Apr 30, 2014
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
Continuing to defend the indefensible.
Why do you hate America? Why?
In typical Dan fashion......
You have no intelligent reply to my queries,
So you attack with some asinine comment.

Bravo, Dan, bravo.

What is indefensible is the BLM tactics.
What's that black SUV parked outside your house?
Have you paid all your bills on time, Dan?

:^`P

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#8 Apr 30, 2014
Independent wrote:
<quoted text>
In typical Dan fashion......
You have no intelligent reply to my queries,
So you attack with some asinine comment.
Bravo, Dan, bravo.
What is indefensible is the BLM tactics.
What's that black SUV parked outside your house?
Have you paid all your bills on time, Dan?
:^`P
Yes, how DARE the agency tasked with enforcing federal law on public lands actually go and enforce federal law on public lands! It's INDEFENSIBLE that they would go do the job we pay them to do!

LMAO!
Independent

United States

#9 Apr 30, 2014
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
Yes, how DARE the agency tasked with enforcing federal law on public lands actually go and enforce federal law on public lands! It's INDEFENSIBLE that they would go do the job we pay them to do!
LMAO!
So, I take it, from your defense of the BLM, your okay with the BLM sending in a SWAT team to collect a debt, beating innocent people, tasing innocent people, killing cattle, shooting holes in water towers and threatening to shoot people? Why are you okay with a fenced in, designated 1st amendment zone? Why do you support the BLM in attempting to take away assembly to peacefully protest?

Where is your outrage against those who trample our BOR?

:^`P
Inquiring Mind

United States

#10 Apr 30, 2014
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
Why do you hate America? Why?
Why do you support Government terrorism? Why?
Why do you support a tyrannical government? Why?
Why do you support a police state? Why?
Why do you support total government control? Why?
Why do you defend the indefensible? Why?

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#11 Apr 30, 2014
Independent wrote:
<quoted text>
So, I take it, from your defense of the BLM, your okay with the BLM sending in a SWAT team to collect a debt, beating innocent people, tasing innocent people, killing cattle, shooting holes in water towers and threatening to shoot people? Why are you okay with a fenced in, designated 1st amendment zone? Why do you support the BLM in attempting to take away assembly to peacefully protest?
Where is your outrage against those who trample our BOR?
:^`P
Your claims are distorted and dishonest.

I've seen no evidence that the BLM responded inappropriately to the armed aggression they were faced with.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#12 Apr 30, 2014
Inquiring Mind wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you support Government terrorism? Why?
Why do you support a tyrannical government? Why?
Why do you support a police state? Why?
Why do you support total government control? Why?
Why do you defend the indefensible? Why?
I don't. You are lying.
I don't. You are lying
I don't. You are lying
I don't. You are lying
I don't. You are lying

Care to say anything truthful, or have you given up on that too?

LOL!
Independent

United States

#13 Apr 30, 2014
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
Your claims are distorted and dishonest.
I've seen no evidence that the BLM responded inappropriately to the armed aggression they were faced with.
Turning a blind eye, Dan, doesn't make it go away.
The BLM didn't stop their armed aggression until they were met with a greater force.

Documented destruction on the BLMs part.
Who did the protesters hurt?
How many shots did they fire?
How many BLM goons were beaten and tased?

"distorted and dishonest".....you truly are a laugh a minute, Dan.

:^`P

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#14 Apr 30, 2014
Independent wrote:
<quoted text>
Turning a blind eye, Dan, doesn't make it go away.
The BLM didn't stop their armed aggression until they were met with a greater force.
Documented destruction on the BLMs part.
Who did the protesters hurt?
How many shots did they fire?
How many BLM goons were beaten and tased?
"distorted and dishonest".....you truly are a laugh a minute, Dan.
:^`P
Enforcing the law is not "armed aggression."

Confronting United States law enforcement with armed resistance is sedition.

You support sedition. I support the rule of law. Guess which side is destined to lose? LOL!
Independent

United States

#16 Apr 30, 2014
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
Enforcing the law is not "armed aggression."
Confronting United States law enforcement with armed resistance is sedition.
You support sedition. I support the rule of law. Guess which side is destined to lose? LOL!
Since when is is sending in a SWAT team to collect a past due debt considered lawful, Dan? What rule of law does that fall under?

There is a fine line between sedition and peaceful protest.
This was a peaceful protest.
You cannot, honestly, refute that.

You, once again, skipped over every question I posed to you by deflecting and falsely claiming I support sedition.

You only, blindly, support the Democrat stance, no matter what form it takes.

:^`P

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#17 Apr 30, 2014
Independent wrote:
<quoted text>
Since when is is sending in a SWAT team to collect a past due debt considered lawful, Dan? What rule of law does that fall under?
There is a fine line between sedition and peaceful protest.
This was a peaceful protest.
You cannot, honestly, refute that.
You, once again, skipped over every question I posed to you by deflecting and falsely claiming I support sedition.
You only, blindly, support the Democrat stance, no matter what form it takes.
:^`P
There was no SWAT team. BLM does not have any tactical teams. Stop being hysterical.

There is a giant, wide, bright line between peaceful protests and sedition. Talk speculating about and encouraging firing on government law enforcement and arming in preparation for it crosses that line.

You only, blindly, support the anti-Democratic, no matter what form it takes.
Independent

United States

#26 May 1, 2014
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
There was no SWAT team......Stop being hysterical.
http://21stcenturywire.com/2014/04/14/exclusi...

Here is a close-up for you.

http://21stcenturywire.com/wp-content/uploads...

oops......sure looks like a SWAT team to me, Dan.

You consider speaking truth as being hysterical?
Odd definition, Dan.
Not surprising, considering your antics of late.

:^`P

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#27 May 1, 2014
Independent wrote:
<quoted text>
http://21stcenturywire.com/2014/04/14/exclusi...
Here is a close-up for you.
http://21stcenturywire.com/wp-content/uploads...
oops......sure looks like a SWAT team to me, Dan.
You consider speaking truth as being hysterical?
Odd definition, Dan.
Not surprising, considering your antics of late.
:^`P
Yep, it does look like a SWAT team. Las Vegas Police Department's SWAT team. Where are the pics of BLM's SWAT team?
Independent

United States

#28 May 1, 2014
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
Yep, it does look like a SWAT team. Las Vegas Police Department's SWAT team. Where are the pics of BLM's SWAT team?
I never stated BLM had their own SWAT team, Dan.
What I said was "Since when is sending in a SWAT team....."
Never mentioning the BLM in my statement.
You , however stated "There was no SWAT team."

The pictures prove you wrong, and your twisting my words, and their meanings, makes you doubly wrong.

:^`P

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#29 May 1, 2014
Independent wrote:
<quoted text>
I never stated BLM had their own SWAT team, Dan.
What I said was "Since when is sending in a SWAT team....."
Never mentioning the BLM in my statement.
You , however stated "There was no SWAT team."
The pictures prove you wrong, and your twisting my words, and their meanings, makes you doubly wrong.
:^`P
I said BLM doesn't have a SWAT or any other tactical team.

Why do you have to twist and distort my words? Are you really that desperate to try to prove something I said is wrong?

Pathetic.
Independent

United States

#30 May 1, 2014
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
I said BLM doesn't have a SWAT or any other tactical team.
Why do you have to twist and distort my words? Are you really that desperate to try to prove something I said is wrong?
Pathetic.
You said:
"There was no SWAT team." note the period ending the statement.

That period, that you now conveniently left out, changes what you said.
That statement, as you well know, is what I was refuting.

You are either being obtuse, or are extremely stupid.

Are you so desperate that you can't admit when you are wrong?
Pathetic.

:^`P

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#33 May 2, 2014
Independent wrote:
<quoted text>
You said:
"There was no SWAT team." note the period ending the statement.
That period, that you now conveniently left out, changes what you said.
That statement, as you well know, is what I was refuting.
You are either being obtuse, or are extremely stupid.
Are you so desperate that you can't admit when you are wrong?
Pathetic.
:^`P
You pull one sentence out of the thought and claim that's what I was saying. That's distortion.

You distort what I say then blame me for the distortion. That's the desperate game of a loser who can't make his case on the facts.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Guns Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News DNC Chair Frontrunner Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Min... 1 hr FormerParatrooper 2
News Hillary Clinton wavers on Second Amendment righ... (Jun '16) 2 hr FormerParatrooper 2,493
My self defense method Sat justice 10
News Ban shooting in and around subdivisions Sat duzitreallymatter 1
News St. Louis Alderwoman Introduces 'Assault Weapon... Nov 19 duzitreallymatter 1
News The power and glory of the comma Nov 15 Flintstonegeek 1
News President Obama Continues Early Release of Arme... Nov 13 tome 1
More from around the web