"It's almost as if the anti-fed movement actually wants another Waco, or Ruby Ridge, so they can use it as some kind of rallying cry for revolution."
This debunking thread is rather politically motivated it seems, quite statist. I get why that isn't a good idea a for a debunking thread now as all the rebuttals would be political too.
The guy offered to pay the fee's to the state rather than the Fed. Ownership is a an artifice while violence is very real. There are loads of political reasons to defend the guy and deem him a hero. All subjective though. As is part of the debunking.
I dont agree with people being able to graze anywhere they like as it would be chaos but the Fed violence is not the appropriate solution. There are also claims they over-step even their government policy authority by killing cattle etc.
Also, the family claim to have been grazing Cattle there before the laws. There is no evidence that they have to obey Feds policies, especially retroactive ones. In fact they didnt and the Fed havent enforced the law so far with them.
I hate to have to take this stance again but the way I see it is Bundy is defending the rights of my family as well as his own.
Ok, the thread is about the specific claim but there are political memes projected in addition to the basic claim.
For all we know it could be fracking motivated. It seems a fair assumption to me but thats the prob with being subjective. Its not something that can be effectively debated. As you are more than aware, with all due respect.
Specifically, he isn't "gone". He is clearly still there with his cattle. Regardless of the paperwork and legalese.
