RE: Accusations and the facts.

RE: Accusations and the facts. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

DomKen -> RE: Accusations and the facts. (4/25/2014 1:11:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux I don't really care about Bundy. I suspect he is just another person guilty of some minute infraction and about to be ground into some very fine dust. I object to a state that has the power to do so. Are BLM fees being used to subsidize non BLM projects. Probably. Definitely not. I posted the numbers. BLM took in $21 million while it spent at least $144 million on the grazing program. quote: Can bundy's refusal to pay be considered as civil disobedience. Probably. definitely not. He's just another sovereign citizen racist asshole causing trouble and resorting to threats of violence or actual violence when things don't go his way. quote: DomKen and others - regardless that you think everyone should just kowtow to the left's point of view - Bundy is just a sympton. You wouldn't have a thousand people showing up to protest unless this act of civil insurrection didn't strike a chord. Bundy is a modern day cautionary tale. Bullshit. Jones and Hannity whipped a bunch of low information yahoos into a frenzy and that isn't hard to do and indicates nothing but that there are a lot of dumbasses in this country.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Accusations and the facts. (4/25/2014 2:58:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: What claims have I made that were inaccurate? Everything in your first two posts was based on assumptions you got from somewhere. Most of those were wrong and clearly came from the right wing media since even a cursory attempt at checking the facts would have cleared up your misconceptions. My first comment (Post#5): quote: From what I've read, the "armed strike force" wasn't sent out until there were specific threats of violence and/or acts of violence against the BLM officials or their government property (ie. vehicles). Seems to argue that Government had at least a decent reason for sending out armed people. Is that what the RW would have been pushing? My second comment (Post#32): quote: There is some point to that [igor: "The renter doesn't get to dictate what is done with his rental money, whether he agrees with it or not."], but there is also a lease agreement that determines, at least somewhat, the reasoning for the costs of rent. The lease cost for grazing should be kept within the BLM for BLM purposes, too. I still think Bundy is in the wrong, but that the Fed's over-reacted, too. I'm glad they stood down, but Bundy needs to either pay his back fees, or have some sort of penalty for not following the law. If Bundy's reasoning is valid, JLF's assertions that Native Americans own all of the US is also valid since they "grazed upon the land" (metaphorically) for quite some time before the US Government came along and claimed the lands. Did the "RW Lie Machine" (RWLM) think Bundy was in the wrong? Did the "RWLM" think Bundy needs to pay the fees or at least a penalty for not following the law? Did the RWLM support the idea that Native Americans should have the entire US back under their control? Are you arguing that a lease agreement doesn't have any section about the responsibilities of the Lessor? I made no claim the BLM's fees weren't going outside the BLM. That was MercTech's assertion. You're still arguing against me when we pretty much agree, Ken. Time to take your toys and go home. quote: You specifically claimed that the BLM was diverting grazing fees. Look at those numbers again. Pretty bogus claim wasn't it? Those who can read and follow a thread would note that I didn't say BLM fees were being diverted. I did state that they should stay within the BLM (as noted above). I think you're mistaking MercTech's comment in Post#29 as mine, which, clearly, it is not.

DomKen -> RE: Accusations and the facts. (4/25/2014 5:25:12 PM)
There was no armed strike force! If the feds had sent out FBI or ATF then these nitwits would be in jail or under siege not appearing on FNC. There was no diversion of fees. As I've already shown the fees don't come close to covering operating costs. and yes you did imply that BLM wa diverting those fees quote: The lease cost for grazing should be kept within the BLM for BLM purposes, too.

Phydeaux -> RE: Accusations and the facts. (4/25/2014 6:59:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen There was no armed strike force! If the feds had sent out FBI or ATF then these nitwits would be in jail or under siege not appearing on FNC. There was no diversion of fees. As I've already shown the fees don't come close to covering operating costs. and yes you did imply that BLM wa diverting those fees quote: The lease cost for grazing should be kept within the BLM for BLM purposes, too. And as usual with fk, apples are not oranges. Ie not covering your costs has no bearing or relation to whether funds are diverted.

TheHeretic -> RE: Accusations and the facts. (4/25/2014 7:48:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: I saw this blowing up the news feeds today, DC, and I'm curious about something. The guy holds ignorant and offensive views on a subject totally unrelated to land use regulations. So what? Does finding a way to apply some personal destruction to him effectively negate the entire question of land use regulation? To me, it speaks to the fact that Bundy is not just some unfortunate John Q. Citizen--or American hero--who's being tormented by evil regulators, but someone who seems to have some axes of his own to grind. I don't think anyone was likely to see him as a John Q. Everyman, DC. He seemed pretty blatant about being an anti-government dickhead. I haven't followed the thing very closely, but what I have seen makes him remind me of some of our local types who are engaged in never ending battles with the code enforcement and building permit agencies of local government. Some of those legal fights will go on for 20 years or more, before they go off to jail for 3-6 months, and the bulldozers finally roll. A few things strike me with this case. Bundy wasn't very sympathetic a figure to begin with, but he tapped right in to an engorged vein of hostility towards government. People are ready to stand up with even the flimsiest of reasons. I think we'll see more such actions. The feds stood down from the confrontation. I'd like to know where in the chain of command that decision was made, and I'd really like to know what the calculation was. As I mentioned, the racist comments blew up the news feeds I follow, but all I really had time to do was scan who was reporting it, and maybe how the headline and lead were written. Bundy went from being a kook with some lunatic fringe supporters, to being a pet cause of conservatives at large awfully quickly, once the racist charge came into play.

DomKen -> RE: Accusations and the facts. (4/25/2014 8:19:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen There was no armed strike force! If the feds had sent out FBI or ATF then these nitwits would be in jail or under siege not appearing on FNC. There was no diversion of fees. As I've already shown the fees don't come close to covering operating costs. and yes you did imply that BLM wa diverting those fees quote: The lease cost for grazing should be kept within the BLM for BLM purposes, too. And as usual with fk, apples are not oranges. Ie not covering your costs has no bearing or relation to whether funds are diverted. Are you kidding? You really have to be. $21 million came in but it cost $144 million to run the program. $123 million had to be sent into BLM. There was no money to divert to anything.

DomKen -> RE: Accusations and the facts. (4/25/2014 8:27:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic As I mentioned, the racist comments blew up the news feeds I follow, but all I really had time to do was scan who was reporting it, and maybe how the headline and lead were written. Bundy went from being a kook with some lunatic fringe supporters, to being a pet cause of conservatives at large awfully quickly, once the racist charge came into play. Before he made the racist comments, Bundy was on FNC basically round the clock. Bundy may be a kook but until Wednesday night he was one getting a lot of support from the right wing.

dcnovice -> RE: Accusations and the facts. (4/25/2014 8:32:35 PM)
quote: Bundy went from being a kook with some lunatic fringe supporters, to being a pet cause of conservatives at large awfully quickly, once the racist charge came into play. Wasn't Hannity championing him long before Bundy mouthed off about "the Negro"? And right-wing legislators seemed to line up to embrace him back then too. Dana Milbank may have put it better than I could: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-bundy-saga-reveals-bedfellows-of-bigotry/2014/04/25/1d9700ac-cca1-11e3-93eb-6c0037dde2ad_story.html?hpid=z6

TheHeretic -> RE: Accusations and the facts. (4/26/2014 12:01:39 AM)
DC, I have no idea what Hannity has to say about anything, and would have thought you'd know better than to think I would.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Accusations and the facts. (4/26/2014 7:50:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen There was no armed strike force! If the feds had sent out FBI or ATF then these nitwits would be in jail or under siege not appearing on FNC. There was no diversion of fees. As I've already shown the fees don't come close to covering operating costs. and yes you did imply that BLM wa diverting those fees quote: The lease cost for grazing should be kept within the BLM for BLM purposes, too. Once again, Ken, you have proven you can not follow a conversation. My "armed strike force" comment was air-quoted. I wonder why. Oh, perhaps because the post I was replying to used it? Nah, that can't be the ca... Oh, wait. Yes it can. Post#5: quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD FR Why after 18 years did they decide it was such a big deal that it justified sending an armed strike force? From what I've read, the "armed strike force" wasn't sent out until there were specific threats of violence and/or acts of violence against the BLM officials or their government property (ie. vehicles). And, as I explained already, MercTech made the assertion that Clinton was attempting to raise fees and divert them for non-BLM purposes. You asserted that I claimed the BLM was doing that. When presented with the truth, you change your tune to say that I implied it. Here's a question Ken: Do you think revenues raised by the BLM should go towards BLM programs? The answers that are acceptable are "yes" or "no."

DomKen -> RE: Accusations and the facts. (4/26/2014 8:08:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen There was no armed strike force! If the feds had sent out FBI or ATF then these nitwits would be in jail or under siege not appearing on FNC. There was no diversion of fees. As I've already shown the fees don't come close to covering operating costs. and yes you did imply that BLM wa diverting those fees quote: The lease cost for grazing should be kept within the BLM for BLM purposes, too. Once again, Ken, you have proven you can not follow a conversation. My "armed strike force" comment was air-quoted. I wonder why. Oh, perhaps because the post I was replying to used it? Nah, that can't be the ca... Oh, wait. Yes it can. Post#5: quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD FR Why after 18 years did they decide it was such a big deal that it justified sending an armed strike force? From what I've read, the "armed strike force" wasn't sent out until there were specific threats of violence and/or acts of violence against the BLM officials or their government property (ie. vehicles). That looked like not sarcasm but simply exactly quoting the person you were replying to. Problem with lack of tone on the internet. quote: And, as I explained already, MercTech made the assertion that Clinton was attempting to raise fees and divert them for non-BLM purposes. You asserted that I claimed the BLM was doing that. When presented with the truth, you change your tune to say that I implied it. I already quoted where you did. I will again. quote: The lease cost for grazing should be kept within the BLM for BLM purposes, too. If you knew what was going on you would have rightfully dismissed that claim as the utter nonsense it is.

dcnovice -> RE: Accusations and the facts. (4/26/2014 8:35:09 AM)
quote: DC, I have no idea what Hannity has to say about anything, and would have thought you'd know better than to think I would. Fear not: I didn't take you as a follower. [:)] Just figured you'd have been aware of him as one of the folks rallying around Bundy.

TheHeretic -> RE: Accusations and the facts. (4/26/2014 9:18:10 AM)
Nope. I'll leave it to people like Ken to pump up the ratings for the talking heads. I have no use for any of them.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Accusations and the facts. (4/26/2014 1:53:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen There was no armed strike force! If the feds had sent out FBI or ATF then these nitwits would be in jail or under siege not appearing on FNC. There was no diversion of fees. As I've already shown the fees don't come close to covering operating costs. and yes you did imply that BLM wa diverting those fees quote: The lease cost for grazing should be kept within the BLM for BLM purposes, too. Once again, Ken, you have proven you can not follow a conversation. My "armed strike force" comment was air-quoted. I wonder why. Oh, perhaps because the post I was replying to used it? Nah, that can't be the ca... Oh, wait. Yes it can. Post#5: quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD FR Why after 18 years did they decide it was such a big deal that it justified sending an armed strike force? From what I've read, the "armed strike force" wasn't sent out until there were specific threats of violence and/or acts of violence against the BLM officials or their government property (ie. vehicles). That looked like not sarcasm but simply exactly quoting the person you were replying to. Problem with lack of tone on the internet. It was an exact quote, Ken. That it wasn't an actual armed strike force is immaterial. I was responding to Bama, using his own words. Last time I checked (and, I admit it's been a good while), exact quoting isn't against TOS. quote: quote: And, as I explained already, MercTech made the assertion that Clinton was attempting to raise fees and divert them for non-BLM purposes. You asserted that I claimed the BLM was doing that. When presented with the truth, you change your tune to say that I implied it. I already quoted where you did. I will again. quote: The lease cost for grazing should be kept within the BLM for BLM purposes, too. If you knew what was going on you would have rightfully dismissed that claim as the utter nonsense it is. Do you disagree that leases for grazing should be kept within the BLM for BLM purposes? Your faulty reading into my statement is an error on your part, Ken.

thompsonx -> RE: Accusations and the facts. (4/26/2014 2:03:01 PM)
Bundy went from being a kook with some lunatic fringe supporters, to being a pet cause of conservatives at large awfully quickly, once the racist charge came into play. This would be an ignorant unsubstantiated opinion.

thompsonx -> RE: Accusations and the facts. (4/26/2014 2:10:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux And as usual with fk, apples are not oranges. Ie not covering your costs has no bearing or relation to whether funds are diverted. Lets see..the blm took in 21 million in fees spent 144 million. Could you please explane how any of that 21 million could have been diverted to non blm issues?

DomKen -> RE: Accusations and the facts. (4/26/2014 2:43:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic Nope. I'll leave it to people like Ken to pump up the ratings for the talking heads. I have no use for any of them. Sure... It is always amazing that certain people deny watching Hannity or listening to Rush but when they post a new thread it is right out of the blowhards last show.

DomKen -> RE: Accusations and the facts. (4/26/2014 2:46:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Your faulty reading into my statement is an error on your part, Ken. There is no fault in my reading. You wrote a statement. I read it literally. That is the only possible way to do so. It was factually wrong and I pointed out that it was wrong and the obvious source of such a claim was wrong and you get pissy. Not my fault.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Accusations and the facts. (4/26/2014 3:02:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Your faulty reading into my statement is an error on your part, Ken. There is no fault in my reading. You wrote a statement. I read it literally. That is the only possible way to do so. It was factually wrong and I pointed out that it was wrong and the obvious source of such a claim was wrong and you get pissy. Not my fault. You didn't comprehend what was written. Obviously, you still don't. And, you refuse to answer a point blank question because you know what will happen when you answer it. Do you think BLM fee revenues should stay within the BLM for BLM programs?

DomKen -> RE: Accusations and the facts. (4/26/2014 3:06:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Your faulty reading into my statement is an error on your part, Ken. There is no fault in my reading. You wrote a statement. I read it literally. That is the only possible way to do so. It was factually wrong and I pointed out that it was wrong and the obvious source of such a claim was wrong and you get pissy. Not my fault. You didn't comprehend what was written. Obviously, you still don't. And, you refuse to answer a point blank question because you know what will happen when you answer it. Do you think BLM fee revenues should stay within the BLM for BLM programs? I comprehended what was written exactly. That you wish that you had written more clearly is not my fault. You believed that it was possible that the BLM could divert grazing fees to some other activity because the right wing media had been telling you it was doing so and you believed it. Not my fault and not my fault that you got pissy when called on it. I don't play gotcha games. You got the wrong person. go find someone else to troll.

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875