Yesterday - Bundy Ranch

[Dr. Jones]

It would be kick *** to here what you know from an inside perspective. I can imagine how frustrating it is to not be able to share everything on a public forum.

I'll try to read that report tomorrow and give feedback, if any.

I just got off the phone from a one hour call with the Bundy's. I am looking into lawyers for them and may take over their communications through Hannity to start.
I'm doing a radio interview tomorrow and may post the podcast here afterward, if I sound sexy.

 

[babe]

I just got off the phone from a one hour call with the Bundy's. I am looking into lawyers for them and may take over their communications through Hannity to start.
I'm doing a radio interview tomorrow and may post the podcast here afterward, if I sound sexy.

This sounds like good news to me. I've been thinking they need help like that. I've been glad to hear Hannity's coverage of the Bundys. Solid and level-headed.

 

[b_line]

This sounds like good news to me. I've been thinking they need help like that. I've been glad to hear Hannity's coverage of the Bundys. Solid and level-headed.

Hannity and level headed are incongruent.

Disclaimer: I have not listened to anything from hannity in years, so I could be wrong about this current issue.

 

[babe]

Sometime you and I will have to discuss all this stuff I've uncovered while investigating the Bundy situation.

I'm trying to square things off so I can go to St. George soon.

 

[Dr. Jones]

This sounds like good news to me. I've been thinking they need help like that. I've been glad to hear Hannity's coverage of the Bundys. Solid and level-headed.

his coverage, although he's trying, is awful. The Bundy's are bad at it too. Given a chance, I will light **** up. the corruption is UNBELIEVABLE.

Hannity and level headed are incongruent.

Disclaimer: I have not listened to anything from hannity in years, so I could be wrong about this current issue.

Fair.

I'm trying to square things off so I can go to St. George soon.

Please.

 

[babe]

Hannity and level headed are incongruent.

Disclaimer: I have not listened to anything from hannity in years, so I could be wrong about this current issue.

Well, we all have our differences. Sometimes Hannity aggravates me with his solid mainstream sort of style. . . . in comparison to, say, Michael Savage or Lyndon LaRouche, for example.

In what I've heard, his stance has sounded like "So why do we need to use the high-powered cops, just send a Sheriff out to do the job". "How come we send a force of 200 out into our desert to deal with one man, when we couldn't send anyone in to help our guys in Bengazi?" His argument just sounds like misplaced emphasis, skewed priorities, and he didn't claim to know the details of the legal case or the history on the ground, just saying it should be handled on a lower profile.

And, oh, BTW. . . . it was Bill Cunningham, "The Great American", who was asking a couple of nights ago about why the ninja soldiers on Bundy's case when we apparently don't care if Al Sharpton owes the government three times as much. . . . .

 

[babe]

@PKM

I note your statement that it doesn't look like some agenda being pushed forward in the Bundy matter. Well, I'm looking at a huge pattern that has been going on across a century. I've seen USDA policy objectives from the fifties. . ..1950s.....promoting corporate ag over family ag, for example.

But I have wondered if the Bundy roundup was not in the class of "black ops" or "false flag" provocation, worried if it was a set-up for some so-called radical supposedly conservative outfit to bust out the guns and start a massacre, or something like that, as a major public "psy-op" ploy to push for a roundup of rednecks, more than any cows. . . . .

Needless to say, we need the facts in regard to the Bundy case. I cannot tell you how much I have cheered for the level-headed character of the folks who were there in support of the Bundys. So glad there was no shooting. . . .

I'm willing to give the BLM as well as the governor of Nevada whatever credit they deserve in that, as well.

 

[The Thriller]

PKM and Hannity working together?

Wow...

This should be good...

 

[John Crotty]

Am I the only one that thinks Bundy is a moron? I skimmed though and saw mainly posts supporting him.

 

[Harambe]

PKM and Hannity working together?

Wow...

This should be good...

Yeah... I'd steer(get it?) clear of Fox News too.

 

[Stoked]

Am I the only one that thinks Bundy is a moron? I skimmed though and saw mainly posts supporting him.

No.

 

[babe]

PKM and Hannity working together?

Wow...

This should be good...

ya think?

oh, nevermind, of course you don't.

 

[babe]

Yeah... I'd steer(get it?) clear of Fox News too.

you really need to coach your humor?

Actually, I've listened to NPR, PBS, and other corporate schill/media retailers all my life. I know some folks have a problem with conflicting ideas, psychologists call it fancy names like "cognitive dissonance" and such. I don't think Fox is particularly challenging, really. Why should people avoid asking questions/knowing different views of the news??? That's usually, in conscious observers of life, just the starting point of something called "thinking".

It's worth doing.

 

[sirkickyass]

No, I am not imparting any additional information at this time. Imo, the side deals are criminal conspiracy.

Hard to evaluate those kinds of statements when there's nothing to show us.

And your little jab is lame.. the joke around here is "I'll tell you tomorrow.." but I have shared more info with this board before it was news than any other.

Sorry, I think your stuff is more Wizard of Oz than most people on the board.

What I see in this thread is a general total failure to engage. You'll post articles (sometimes with attribution, sometimes without), I (and others) will write responses or ask questions and any engaging with the ideas you put forth is generally ignored or simply bypassed entirely to talk about the next topic. For example, in this thread I responded to your 105 page court decision, which I actually read about 70% of omitting only portions of testimony whose import was accurately summarized in footnotes, by pointing out that this was about another rancher's situation and the court case had to do with arbitrary denials of grazing permits by the BLM. Further I asked what the analogous arbitrary action by the BLM was in this instance, largely because the factual differences between the two cases appear to be very prominent and extremely pertinent to the judge's ruling. There's a reason the facts and testimony of the case take up 70+% of the judge's decision.

You completely bypassed this in its entirety, although later continuing to push up this decision as proof of something nefarious with respect to the BLM and the Bundy's; including making comparative points about how this judge's ruling (in a different case with different facts) should be just as valuable as a judge's ruling with respect to the actual Bundy case.

So yeah, I think you're just talking and not providing meaningful content. Your participation in the thread is more like a personal voyages blog than an actual discussion.

 

[Dr. Jones]

Hard to evaluate those kinds of statements when there's nothing to show us.



Sorry, I think your stuff is more Wizard of Oz than most people on the board.

What I see in this thread is a general total failure to engage. You'll post articles (sometimes with attribution, sometimes without), I (and others) will write responses or ask questions and any engaging with the ideas you put forth is generally ignored or simply bypassed entirely to talk about the next topic. For example, in this thread I responded to your 105 page court decision, which I actually read about 70% of omitting only portions of testimony whose import was accurately summarized in footnotes, by pointing out that this was about another rancher's situation and the court case had to do with arbitrary denials of grazing permits by the BLM. Further I asked what the analogous arbitrary action by the BLM was in this instance, largely because the factual differences between the two cases appear to be very prominent and extremely pertinent to the judge's ruling. There's a reason the facts and testimony of the case take up 70+% of the judge's decision.

You completely bypassed this in its entirety, although later continuing to push up this decision as proof of something nefarious with respect to the BLM and the Bundy's; including making comparative points about how this judge's ruling (in a different case with different facts) should be just as valuable as a judge's ruling with respect to the actual Bundy case.

So yeah, I think you're just talking and not providing meaningful content. Your participation in the thread is more like a personal voyages blog than an actual discussion.

- I'm not here to satisfy your requirements for how I should communicate.
- Things will come out shortly.. I am going on a radio show today to, for the first time, share some details publicly.

 

[Harambe]

you really need to coach your humor?

Actually, I've listened to NPR, PBS, and other corporate schill/media retailers all my life. I know some folks have a problem with conflicting ideas, psychologists call it fancy names like "cognitive dissonance" and such. I don't think Fox is particularly challenging, really. Why should people avoid asking questions/knowing different views of the news??? That's usually, in conscious observers of life, just the starting point of something called "thinking".

It's worth doing.

The emphasis was supposed to be that most plebs on the board wouldn't know humor from idiocy. But that appears to be wasted on you right now... you know better.

I don't have an issue with conflicting ideas. Sharing those ideas is how progress is made. But when releasing huge news(possibly impacting the direction of the country), it's entirely lost to large groups if not coming from the middle instead of an extreme.

In the event you haven't noticed, Hannity is an extreme.

 

[Duck Rodgers]

T minus some odd days until PKM gets audited.

 

[Dr. Jones]

T minus some odd days until PKM gets audited.

One aspect of this that I am sincerely weighing..

 

[Dr. Jones]

The emphasis was supposed to be that most plebs on the board wouldn't know humor from idiocy. But that appears to be wasted on you right now... you know better.

I don't have an issue with conflicting ideas. Sharing those ideas is how progress is made. But when releasing huge news(possibly impacting the direction of the country), it's entirely lost to large groups if not coming from the middle instead of an extreme.

In the event you haven't noticed, Hannity is an extreme.

I actually agree with this. Hannity would not be my first choice of place to start, but start somewhere you must.

 

[babe]

The emphasis was supposed to be that most plebs on the board wouldn't know humor from idiocy. But that appears to be wasted on you right now... you know better.

I don't have an issue with conflicting ideas. Sharing those ideas is how progress is made. But when releasing huge news(possibly impacting the direction of the country), it's entirely lost to large groups if not coming from the middle instead of an extreme.

In the event you haven't noticed, Hannity is an extreme.

This particular stand on "releasing huge news" is invalid. I don't think Hannity is extreme because his radio program is actually very centrist. Republican, yes, but pretty much moderate to centrist Republican advocacy.

Rhetoric coming from folks who use the "extreme" epithet recklessly to try to marginalize criticism of a "status quo" claimed wholeheartedly by marxist "progressives" is just that. . . rhetoric that is so far removed from the truth that anyone who is actually aware of the facts is gonna reject it.

Someone like a pro-Russian or pro-Chinese socialist. . . . as is the case with Lyndon LaRouche. . . . can believe in big government being the people's government under an ideal schema of giving the folks more technology, better health care, a creative sort of "education" that fosters personal imagination and appreciation of the arts while seeing our corporate fascism as a British oligarchal "empire" sort of thing that needs to be taken down, starting at the top with outright royalty figures like the Queen of England and her consort Prince Philipp. That's "extreme" in comparison to folks who support the big bank bailouts and Dewey socialist "education" consisting of training the lower classes to accept menial jobs and serve the corporate paymasters without questioning their policies. . . . folks who believe "Common Core" is the way the go with nationalized education. . . .

Point is, anybody can be called "extreme". In the above example, I bet you'd find another true socialist, even one with some marxist ideals, "extreme". Wouldn't be the first time different "big thinkers" tried to manage the human herd with different methods ever had a falling out and glared at one another with "extreme" hatred, or used political power to throw one another in jail.

I could draw some examples from your so-called "right-wing" sorts as well, but it wouldn't be as useful in trying to show my point to you, I would suppose.

I am sure most folks with opinions developed in any consistent manner who care to articulate them on the public airways might seem "extreme" to anyone who just doesn't care to understand their views.

Hannity is pretty mild on his comments compared to many, many others, and he is very intent upon supporting mainstream "Republican" sorts of political ideals and personalities. He supported Romney while criticizing Ron Paul, for example.

My point stands because it is factual.