It's ok for Wall Street to get bailed out by her lord and savior for the greatest theft in the history of mankind...but heaven forbid a white man who talks bad about black people doesn't pay a bullshit grazing fee to those crooks who bailed out their crook friends.

The hypocrisy of the statists never ceases to amaze.

the best part about coming on here and discussing things, is when people respond with their thoughts and opinions on the topic. it's great that no one chooses instead to attack the person who starts the thread, to make wild accusations about how they want the country to be, and call people names and veer off into wild tangents.
it's the best part about this room. i appreciate everyone's level-headedness.

by the way, GR, my point in posting his comments was to illustrate the fine ranchers hypocrisy, in bashing others for being on the dole while not paying grazing fees that plenty of other ranchers pay.

the govt should hold all to the same rules of law, whether a banker or a rancher.

How convenient that you delete the initial post so you can garner sympathy.

After watching you bully your way all over this board for over a year.

Now you're back to wanting to censor people.

I don't like you either. At least I'm not a phony and will tell you so.

Go ahead and have me censored, "New American"

i neither wish to censor nor have the ability to do so.

i don't need sympathy either...
but, enough about me. been lurking for a year, what made you finally decide to start posting again with your newest moniker?

Danzig when you title a thread cliven KEEPS digging and then try to feign ignorance at being called out for your bias...

considering the gubmint had guns pointed at the protesters and they tazed and arrested the son. They also rustled his cattle and brutally killed a few of them, separated the calves from their mothers.

That wasn't enough for you to make a thread...but a ridiculous opinion of the rancher is.

I mean come on, zig. What do you expect people to think?

yes, i said keeps digging because after his initial bad remarks, he made more of the same to defend the initial remarks, thus digging a deeper hole then he was already in.

i found it interesting that the standoff occurred, and was watching to see how it would unfold.

why i started the thread was because he 'defended' his initial bad remarks, critical of people on the dole (and he's also been receiving bennies from the govt he says doesn't exist for free) with more of the same. he was digging himself deeper in that regard.
seeing hypocrisy isn't a 'ridiculous' opinion. the guy wants his freebies, while decrying others theirs.

i didn't start the thread due to the standoff-else i would have started a thread back when the story broke.

I kind of amazed that this, of all things related to the story, is what has triggered your public outrage - but again, I'm not convinced it really has.

It's simply what you are now supposed to do.

Crazy old white guy tells Harry Reid to shove it, Harry Reid sends a military force after him ya know, to "show 'em who's the boss", they attack his family and kill his cattle - crickets.

Crazy old white guy makes a couple ridiculous statements; statements that any normal, sane, rational human would simply dismiss as exactly that - a crazy old ignorant white guy's ludicrous rantings - and....... OMGZZZ!!! Alert the Presses!!! :zz:

That's the important take away. Crazy people saying crazy things that happen to - OMFG - attack the libtard's hyper-sensitivities - 5 alarm satire!

Great News is that Jon Stewart now has a week's worth of programming! So now the libtards can laugh at a guy making fun of an ignorant crazy person.

For a whole week!

Yay New 'Merica!!

outrage?

again, someone making assumptions because i started this thread.

i didn't start a thread about the standoff.
didn't post one about his comments.
only posted when he doubled down on his comments with a bad attempt at defending them, when his initial comments were pretty much indefensible.


but, no, not outraged.

you guys are reading way too much into my post that started the thread.


also, again i see the use of libtard in your reply to me.

i am neither a liberal, nor retarded (and that word is not something people like to see, my apologies) so please stop with that.

Deflector shields - Activate!

We can't see your original post because you removed it - but much like the other threads you start based one someone's actions / beliefs that you don't agree with - you at least gave the impression that you found his remarks outrageous, so if that doesn't mean you were outraged, What was the purpose of the thread if not to draw attention to his remarks?

I know you are neither a liberal nor retarded - My response was clearly directed, in general terms, to all of this feigned outrage over what is tantamount to simply an ignorant old man's rantings.

An old man who no one in this world would have ever known a single thing about had it not been for the "Pelosi-izing" of the US Government.

my original post was a link showing his comments, and another showing his comments he made to defend the initial comments. it was the second set that prompted the post that started the thread.
it was to draw attention to his hypocrisy, hypocrisy being one of my pet peeves.
i seldom get 'outraged'. more often, if starting a thread it's to start a conversation about something i either agree or disagree with, or to get thoughts from others.

at work, i have moments of business punctuated by longer moments of boredom, in which i have time to read...and no one to talk to except the dog. so, much of the time i start a thread here, or go to slate, to enjoy conversation. it's not out of outrage, it's out of lack of people to talk to at work.
but, quite often it has its good points!

:tro: