So nothing about this? Feds engage in cattle rustling, assault, in Nevada

Well, the only one you're fooling is yourself.

Your evasiveness speaks for itself.

But it does not say what you think it says.

Captain X will now link to every instance anywhere on WF where anyone of any political stripe - other than in Post #619, which he will not have understood to be sarcasm - has said "I think the feds should shoot unarmed civilians." (We'll consider the question of whether the human shields in this instance were actually unarmed, given Mrs. Bundy's remarks about shotguns, to be debatable.)

Or he'll just continue to post chicken videos and laugh at his own jokes.

What I'm laughing at is you inability to answer two simple questions about if the Feds would be in the wrong to shoot unarmed human beings given two different scenarios.

Now, no doubt, you're going to try to engage in that moronic "got to get the last word in" game you do with Castle so frequently.

You might have stopped at "[whether] the Feds would be in the wrong to shoot unarmed human beings." No need to create scenarios. The answer is "It's wrong for anyone to shoot an unarmed human being."

It should be self-evident. But in a forum where George Zimmerman is considered a victim, it apparently isn't.

In any case, it doesn't belong in this thread, because Bundy's mob is clearly armed. They've bragged about it. And, oh, yes, keep ignoring the fact that no one shot at them, much as they were hoping for another Waco - but with themselves as the victors, of course.

So, do you want to talk about all of the variations on "armed individual shooting unarmed individual"? If so, start a separate thread about it.

Or go find another chicken video.

People who ask cartoon questions are not entitled to answers.

So you're still gonna dodge the question?

What's up, Doc?

I'm beginning to think Federal Farmer is a 'bot.

I don't know if he's a bot, but I sure would like to see his Turing test results.

Yanno, I think you may be on to something. He's still given no indication he understands the difference between a turtle and a tortoise.

So, that's a yes then? I'll put you down as okay with the Feds murdering unarmed citizenry.

Only if you're a liar.

Pretty much sums up that discussion.

I think we all see what the end of the discussion is here: Some of us are okay with anything the government wants to do; some of us aren't. Another way to read that is: some of us are actual, whole, and real people. Those of you on the Left... yeah, not so much.

And here's some more of this government that is supposely "of" we, the people. A cop doing 120 fuckin' miles per hour, for no reason. Endangering public safety, and why? Because he's got a badge.



And before Leftforge gets to yelling, yes, this does exemplify exactly what government is. It's exactly this. It's, "I've got a badge, and you don't, so fuck you!" And you stupid fucking cattle are okay with that! Dumbasses!

It really does! You dumb "authority"-loving mother fuckers are just fine with government murdering innocent people!

Nope, it has to specifically be the Feds shooting unarmed protestors. I want you to have to face that idea and see how it sits with you. But, like I thought, you're too chickenshit to answer it and will only continue to avoid answer the question with that smug sense of non-intelligence you have.

It amuses me that you would bring this up again, and that even after all this time and facts being know that you would still cling to the notion that Martin was an innocent victim that Zimmerman coldly gunned down.

Funny, the fact reality didn't match up with this ex-sherriff's plan didn't stop you and others from criticizing Bundy's group for it, even though there's no evidence any of the rest of them liked the idea either. But really, my questions, being entirely hypothetical, have nothing to do with the way things went down, either. It's a personal reflection and that's all, but you're still too much of a coward to answer the questions.

People who make excuses rather than standing up for their principals don't deserve respect, which is why you don't have any on this board.

Well, okay, but only if we also stipulate that in this hypothetical, you and Castle are eating out one another's asses, while the feds are gunning down innocents. Okay?

This is the only accurate claim in that post -- at least if we allow for some leeway for the term "questions", which should typically signal some interest in answers, which you're lacking.

You realize that you just showed a video of a government employee arresting another government employee that is abusing the rules, right?

This.....doesn't really help your case at all.

And it's funny (sad really) how if somebody on the left says something blatantly racist or bigoted the leftists trip over themselves trying to defend them as "being taken out of context" or "caught up in the passion" of the situation - bottom line not a reflection of their real character. Somebody on the right does a Clive Bundy and the left sees a KKK rally. It's not so much the race card as the double standard card. Three...two....one and GO! Start mocking me for being a privileged white male complaining about losing my power base. When a lib does, it's crusading. Conservative, it's complaining.

I'm interested, but gul seems to be the only one amongst you who isn't a complete chickenshit. So you're all pussies, whatever.

This falls under what I’d call the VisionRazor Rule, where one of these two clowns (or any of our other clowns, for that matter) takes what we say and pretends it’s the opposite.

AFAIC, the VisionRazor Rule is applicable to any and all Castle posts from here on. Federal Farmer’s only played teh Stupid once so far, so he’s on probation for the moment, but he’ll be observed carefully.

The way to approach a post under the VisionRazor Rule is to run it through one’s Universal Translator until it makes sense. Let’s look at an example:

What John Castle is really saying is "Yes, I understand that the liberal position is pacifist in nature and does not under any circumstance justify the killing of unarmed individuals."

Or similar paraphrase. Our doing this will of course send him into a spittle-flying frenzy, but what doesn't?

Watch how he reacts to this post as an example.

Which suggests you think it’s okay for anyone else with a gun to shoot unarmed persons. Now, in your cartoon universe, you might be entitled to shoot the Hulk, but we know how effective that would be, so when you’re ready to join the adults, do let us know.

It also shows a government employee abusing the rules in the first place as a matter of course. Yeah, that one got caught. How many times do you figure he'd done that kind of shit without getting caught?

VisionRazor Rule: What Castle really means is "It was silly of me to even suggest as I did upthread that no one should ever be the boss of anyone, and this is a perfect example."

Human beings will always break the rules, no matter where they are.

What, do you childishly think that because someone works in the government they automatically become a model citizen?

Luckily though, as you demonstrated in your video, there are checks and balances in place to prevent this from happening or punish people for engaging in such behaviour.

Which is why it's not a good idea to give them power over other human beings.

Such as guns, for instance?