Author Topic: Bundy to Congress: Rein In Harry Reid  (Read 554 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online mystery-ak

  • Owner
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 248,409
Bundy to Congress: Rein In Harry Reid
« on: April 22, 2014, 08:21:00 AM »
http://www.newsmax.com/PrintTemplate.aspx/?nodeid=566883


Newsmax
Bundy to Congress: Rein In Harry Reid
Tuesday, April 22, 2014 06:18 AM

By: Greg Richter

Cliven Bundy, the Nevada cattle rancher at odds with the federal government over grazing rights says Sen. Harry Reid was wrong to call his supporters "domestic terrorists."

"Who looked like the terrorist?" Bundy said Monday on Fox News Channel's "Hannity."

Bundy argued that it was federal agents who had guns drawn on his family and supporters earlier this month in a standoff near his ranch. Some of Bundy's supporters are members of private militia groups and also had weapons.

"Why, Harry, are you calling for a civil war?" Bundy said on Fox News. "That's not what we the people want. We just want to disarm the army, and get out of our state and start acting like citizens of the United States."

The federal government owns almost 90 percent of the land in Nevada, but Bundy doesn't recognize federal authority on what he says is state land.

"I think he's going to make a lot of noise," Bundy said of Reid, the Senate majority leader, who has served on behalf of Nevada in Washington, D.C., in the Senate and House since 1983.

"I'm calling on the United States Congress to pull Harry in and straighten him out," the plainspoken Bundy said."I don't believe you people would call us terrorists, and I don't believe you should allow Harry to run free and loose anymore. His mouth needs to be kept quiet, and you people need to do it. It's not my job. It's your job to rein him in a little bit."

Reid made the "domestic terrorists" statement at an event in Las Vegas on Thursday.

Support the USO

Offline evadR²

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3,197
Re: Bundy to Congress: Rein In Harry Reid
« Reply #1 on: April 22, 2014, 08:31:50 AM »
From Dan Bongino

Regarding the Bundy family in Nevada:

First, this is not a question of law but the process by which laws are enforced and the methods used to enforce them. Sadly, many Americans are questioning if the process is fair, equal and apolitical in application?
Many patriotic and previously apolitical Americans are frustrated and are questioning if it is a more accurate expression of fidelity to our Constitution, and the rule of law, by violating the law in support of a larger principle?
When the administration consistently ignores clearly written laws, yet expects you to vigorously follow the letter of the law in an alphabet they no longer use, are we in a society of laws or just laws that apply to you?
I hope some of the DC elites read this because we are a country of genuinely good and law-abiding people who just want to know that their voice is heard and that the process is not rigged. Labeling Americans who speak out, and are frustrated at a process that seems to only apply to them and not the connected few, racists, terrorists and other terrible names, is not leadership or courageous. Maybe when their voices and their access to the process stops being drowned out by the voices of the cronyists and politically connected we can reach a place where a land-use disagreement such as the situation in Nevada doesn't escalate as it did.
November 6, 2012, a day in infamy...the death of a republic as we know it.

Offline evadR²

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3,197
Re: Bundy to Congress: Rein In Harry Reid
« Reply #2 on: April 22, 2014, 08:36:07 AM »
We cannot exist as a nation under 3 more years of this corrupt administration.
November 6, 2012, a day in infamy...the death of a republic as we know it.

Offline Luis Gonzalez

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,500
    • Boiling Frogs
Re: Bundy to Congress: Rein In Harry Reid
« Reply #3 on: April 22, 2014, 09:06:34 AM »
They are both such hypocrites, Bundy and Reid.

The Federal agents were there showing force because Bundy has repeatedly threatened to meet anyone trying to enforce the Court rulings with force.

Where the agents charged with enforcing the Court order supposed to simply walk in hoping that he was lying?

The stubborn fool doesn't even have the support of the Nevada Cattlemen's Association, and I can bet that the NCA members as well as the nearly 16,000 other ranchers holding BLM grazing permits and leases  probably wish that Bundy would just shut up. He's shining a bright light of the very lucrative practice of grazing on public lands.

According to a Congressional study in 2012, grazing fees in non-BLM managed lands can run up to $80 per month per cow/calf combination in grazing lands managed by the States  and as high as $150 per month per cow/calf unit in privately-owned lands leased for grazing. The BLM is charging $1.35 for the same as per Reagan's Executive Order #12548 as a result of heavy Federal subsidies for the program.

In other words, the taxpayers of that nation that Bundy claims doesn't exist are heavily subsidizing ranchers everywhere. Those subsidies include Federally funded predator killing programs that kills wildlife at the request of ranchers, even though predators account for less than 3% of all cattle/calf losses each year.

Maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea to let the free market rule here. Let's put those lands up for bid to the highest bidder and let the winner set the grazing fees according to who has the ability to pay the highest fee. That's the kind of freedom that Bundy wants... isn't it?

Or if the State wishes to take title to those lands, let the citizens of that State decide whether or not they want to continue providing corporate welfare for Bundy and all the ranchers now enjoying it, or whether the ranchers should have to buy the land that their cattle graze on and pay taxes on it, just like everyone pays taxes on land they claim title to.

I'm sure that those other 16,000 permit holders are thrilled at the idea of Bundy getting his wishes and the government out of the grazing lands business.

And I'm sure those ranchers paying $1.35 per AUM would consider it an honor and their patriotic duty to pay $80 to $150 for AUM instead.

Freedom isn't free, and it shouldn't be subsidized either.


“[Euthanasia] is what any State medical service has sooner or later got to face. If you are going to be kept alive in institutions run by and paid for by the State, you must accept the State’s right to economize when necessary …” The Ministry of Fear by Graham Green (New York: Penguin Books [1943] 2005, p. 165).

Offline Luis Gonzalez

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,500
    • Boiling Frogs
Re: Bundy to Congress: Rein In Harry Reid
« Reply #4 on: April 22, 2014, 09:09:43 AM »
From Dan Bongino

Regarding the Bundy family in Nevada:

First, this is not a question of law but the process by which laws are enforced and the methods used to enforce them. Sadly, many Americans are questioning if the process is fair, equal and apolitical in application?
Many patriotic and previously apolitical Americans are frustrated and are questioning if it is a more accurate expression of fidelity to our Constitution, and the rule of law, by violating the law in support of a larger principle?
When the administration consistently ignores clearly written laws, yet expects you to vigorously follow the letter of the law in an alphabet they no longer use, are we in a society of laws or just laws that apply to you?
I hope some of the DC elites read this because we are a country of genuinely good and law-abiding people who just want to know that their voice is heard and that the process is not rigged. Labeling Americans who speak out, and are frustrated at a process that seems to only apply to them and not the connected few, racists, terrorists and other terrible names, is not leadership or courageous. Maybe when their voices and their access to the process stops being drowned out by the voices of the cronyists and politically connected we can reach a place where a land-use disagreement such as the situation in Nevada doesn't escalate as it did.

The fact that the administration doesn't enforce laws does not excuse the fact that Bundy has been breaking those laws for 16 years prior to this administration taking office.

The fact that your neighbor gets away with cheating on his taxes doesn't mean that you should be able to get away with beating your wife.

What was the excuse when Bundy was breaking laws and ignoring Court orders during the eight years that GWB was in office?
« Last Edit: April 22, 2014, 09:14:13 AM by Luis Gonzalez »
“[Euthanasia] is what any State medical service has sooner or later got to face. If you are going to be kept alive in institutions run by and paid for by the State, you must accept the State’s right to economize when necessary …” The Ministry of Fear by Graham Green (New York: Penguin Books [1943] 2005, p. 165).

Offline evadR²

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3,197
Re: Bundy to Congress: Rein In Harry Reid
« Reply #5 on: April 22, 2014, 01:15:06 PM »
This is true but the fact still remains, this is the first time, to my knowledge anyway, that we have sent in snipers and hundreds of thugs to confiscate the man's property.
I have the utmost respect for Bongino and for a reasonable man like Dan to speak like this, it makes me take notice.
We are a nation of rule by law that no longer observes the rule of law. We are ruled by decree by a bunch of lawless creeps that have absolutely no respect whatsoever for our constitution or principles.
More of this militia involvement is being stirred up now because of this. I have no idea where it will wind up but I'm pretty sure I know where it's headed.
« Last Edit: April 22, 2014, 01:19:46 PM by evadR² »
November 6, 2012, a day in infamy...the death of a republic as we know it.

Offline evadR²

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3,197
Re: Bundy to Congress: Rein In Harry Reid
« Reply #6 on: April 22, 2014, 01:20:52 PM »
modified to change spipers to snipers.
Who knows, maybe they sent spipers in too. There's no telling with this bunch.
November 6, 2012, a day in infamy...the death of a republic as we know it.

Offline Luis Gonzalez

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,500
    • Boiling Frogs
Re: Bundy to Congress: Rein In Harry Reid
« Reply #7 on: April 22, 2014, 01:44:43 PM »
This is true but the fact still remains, this is the first time, to my knowledge anyway, that we have sent in snipers and hundreds of thugs to confiscate the man's property.
I have the utmost respect for Bongino and for a reasonable man like Dan to speak like this, it makes me take notice.
We are a nation of rule by law that no longer observes the rule of law. We are ruled by decree by a bunch of lawless creeps that have absolutely no respect whatsoever for our constitution or principles.
More of this militia involvement is being stirred up now because of this. I have no idea where it will wind up but I'm pretty sure I know where it's headed.

We observe the rule of law to a greater degree, by far, than not.

If anyone here is showing no respect for the Constitution is the man who doesn't believe that the nation that the Constitution created actually exists.

Read up on George Washington's response to the Whiskey Rebellion.
« Last Edit: April 22, 2014, 01:45:43 PM by Luis Gonzalez »
“[Euthanasia] is what any State medical service has sooner or later got to face. If you are going to be kept alive in institutions run by and paid for by the State, you must accept the State’s right to economize when necessary …” The Ministry of Fear by Graham Green (New York: Penguin Books [1943] 2005, p. 165).

Offline Oceander

  • Technical
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 43,478
  • #NeverTrumpForever
Re: Bundy to Congress: Rein In Harry Reid
« Reply #8 on: April 22, 2014, 01:53:47 PM »
They are both such hypocrites, Bundy and Reid.

The Federal agents were there showing force because Bundy has repeatedly threatened to meet anyone trying to enforce the Court rulings with force.

Where the agents charged with enforcing the Court order supposed to simply walk in hoping that he was lying?

The stubborn fool doesn't even have the support of the Nevada Cattlemen's Association, and I can bet that the NCA members as well as the nearly 16,000 other ranchers holding BLM grazing permits and leases  probably wish that Bundy would just shut up. He's shining a bright light of the very lucrative practice of grazing on public lands.

According to a Congressional study in 2012, grazing fees in non-BLM managed lands can run up to $80 per month per cow/calf combination in grazing lands managed by the States  and as high as $150 per month per cow/calf unit in privately-owned lands leased for grazing. The BLM is charging $1.35 for the same as per Reagan's Executive Order #12548 as a result of heavy Federal subsidies for the program.

In other words, the taxpayers of that nation that Bundy claims doesn't exist are heavily subsidizing ranchers everywhere. Those subsidies include Federally funded predator killing programs that kills wildlife at the request of ranchers, even though predators account for less than 3% of all cattle/calf losses each year.

Maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea to let the free market rule here. Let's put those lands up for bid to the highest bidder and let the winner set the grazing fees according to who has the ability to pay the highest fee. That's the kind of freedom that Bundy wants... isn't it?

Or if the State wishes to take title to those lands, let the citizens of that State decide whether or not they want to continue providing corporate welfare for Bundy and all the ranchers now enjoying it, or whether the ranchers should have to buy the land that their cattle graze on and pay taxes on it, just like everyone pays taxes on land they claim title to.

I'm sure that those other 16,000 permit holders are thrilled at the idea of Bundy getting his wishes and the government out of the grazing lands business.

And I'm sure those ranchers paying $1.35 per AUM would consider it an honor and their patriotic duty to pay $80 to $150 for AUM instead.

Freedom isn't free, and it shouldn't be subsidized either.


:thumbsup:

Offline Luis Gonzalez

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,500
    • Boiling Frogs
Re: Bundy to Congress: Rein In Harry Reid
« Reply #9 on: April 22, 2014, 04:09:07 PM »
P.S. To those people who argue that it is unconstitutional for the Federal government to own land.

Quote
Federal land ownership began when the original 13 states ceded title to more than 40% of their “western” lands (237 million acres between the Appalachian Mountains and the Mississippi River) to the central government between 1781 and 1802.

Federal land acquisition from foreign countries began with the Louisiana Purchase (530 million acres) in 1803 and continued via treaties with Great Britain and Spain (76 million acres) in 1817 and 1819, respectively. Other substantial acquisitions (620 million acres), via purchases and treaties, occurred between 1846 and 1853. The last major North American land acquisition by the U.S. federal government was the purchase of Alaska (378 million acres) in 1867.

One would imagine that the people who ratified the Constitution would understand its original intent better than most, and they immediately transferred ownership of that much land over to the Federal government.

Furthermore, if Federal ownership of land is unconstitutional, then it would be unconstitutional or illegal for the Federal government to purchase lands so we will have to roll back the Louisiana Purchase and the acquisition of Alaska. We would also have to give back all the land gained by the United States via treaties, which would include Nevada, or maybe States that gained Statehood via the insertion of Disclaimer Clauses in their Constitutions should be stripped of Statehood since they now want to make the argument that the Clause is not Constitutionally sound.

That would be one way to get rid of California.
“[Euthanasia] is what any State medical service has sooner or later got to face. If you are going to be kept alive in institutions run by and paid for by the State, you must accept the State’s right to economize when necessary …” The Ministry of Fear by Graham Green (New York: Penguin Books [1943] 2005, p. 165).

Offline evadR²

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3,197
Re: Bundy to Congress: Rein In Harry Reid
« Reply #10 on: April 22, 2014, 04:54:30 PM »
We observe the rule of law to a greater degree, by far, than not.

If anyone here is showing no respect for the Constitution is the man who doesn't believe that the nation that the Constitution created actually exists.

Read up on George Washington's response to the Whiskey Rebellion.
I'm not sure what that comment is supposed to mean but I believe there is a huge difference between believing that the constitution exists and believing that the constitution is being seriously abused by those in charge of protecting same.
As an analogy I would say that a person can have the utmost respect for the office of president and have a complete disdain for the person holding that position.  Such is the case for me concerning Obama.
Also I would say that a person could even have a certain respect for the government and the agencies of the government but in today's world that gets tougher and tougher.
I hope you're right about "We observe the rule of law to a greater degree, by far, than not" ...but I'm looking for better than that. My take on it would be that as a people we observe most of our laws but our leaders do not. The further up the chain of command you go, the more lawless they become. Our agencies and departments have been corrupted, beyond the tipping point.  Whether that's a majority or not, I don't know, but one thing's for sure, it's a foreboding trend.
This nation, IMO, cannot survive another 3 years of the Obama administration. Somehow, he and his sycophants must be neutralized.
November 6, 2012, a day in infamy...the death of a republic as we know it.

Offline Luis Gonzalez

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,500
    • Boiling Frogs
Re: Bundy to Congress: Rein In Harry Reid
« Reply #11 on: April 22, 2014, 06:51:53 PM »
I'm not sure what that comment is supposed to mean but I believe there is a huge difference between believing that the constitution exists and believing that the constitution is being seriously abused by those in charge of protecting same.
As an analogy I would say that a person can have the utmost respect for the office of president and have a complete disdain for the person holding that position.  Such is the case for me concerning Obama.
Also I would say that a person could even have a certain respect for the government and the agencies of the government but in today's world that gets tougher and tougher.
I hope you're right about "We observe the rule of law to a greater degree, by far, than not" ...but I'm looking for better than that. My take on it would be that as a people we observe most of our laws but our leaders do not. The further up the chain of command you go, the more lawless they become. Our agencies and departments have been corrupted, beyond the tipping point.  Whether that's a majority or not, I don't know, but one thing's for sure, it's a foreboding trend.
This nation, IMO, cannot survive another 3 years of the Obama administration. Somehow, he and his sycophants must be neutralized.


I would argue that our leaders, as a whole, observe the vast majority of our laws, but that when the laws are broken, even by a small percentage relative to the totality of that entity we call "our leaders" (I like to call them "our elected representatives, but I guess that's just semantics), we immediately claim that none are following our laws.

The stark reality in the Bundy situation is that what Bundy is fighting against are laws that were duly enacted by our duly elected representatives, and that those laws are not outside the scope of what they have the constitutional power to craft.

There is absolutely NOTHING here that's unconstitutional. Unpalatable to some, perhaps, but nothing that's unconstitutional.

When Bundy announces to the world that he doesn't believe that the US government even exists any more, he is disrespecting the Constitutional and orderly manner that the government of the United States was elected by the people of the United States, which is in fact showing great disrespect for our Constitution because it is the Constitution that sets up the manner that we choose those representatives. This may not be the government that you, or me or Bundy would like to have, but it IS the government that people of the United States elected to have, and trust me, there are few who wish that this was not the case more than I wish that this was not the case.

The United States IS the Constitution and the Constitution IS the United States, and in turn the government of the United States. No one leg can be missing and support the whole of the thing.

Cliven Bundy, by his own words, has declared himself an enemy of the United States by dismissing its existence, and when he boasts about waging a "range war" against the government of the United States, he is threatening to levy war against the United States.

That's the Constitutional definition of treason. 
“[Euthanasia] is what any State medical service has sooner or later got to face. If you are going to be kept alive in institutions run by and paid for by the State, you must accept the State’s right to economize when necessary …” The Ministry of Fear by Graham Green (New York: Penguin Books [1943] 2005, p. 165).

Online Fishrrman

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9,537
Re: Bundy to Congress: Rein In Harry Reid
« Reply #12 on: April 22, 2014, 11:07:39 PM »
Luis wrote:
[[ Cliven Bundy, by his own words, has declared himself an enemy of the United States by dismissing its existence, and when he boasts about waging a "range war" against the government of the United States, he is threatening to levy war against the United States.
That's the Constitutional definition of treason.  ]]

I urge you to come down off the high horse.
Why do you write as if you have something stuck up your craw about Cliven Bundy?

He may not be as pure as the driven snow, not that they get much snow where he is. He's not even close to being squeaky-clean.

Mr. Bundy actually sounds a little (or perhaps a little more) off-kilter. The same might have been said about Randy Weaver up in Idaho some years' back. But what happened to him at the hands of the federal government certainly struck a raw nerve amongst many. And he was later vindicated in court.

It's obvious that the BLM wanted Bundy's cattle off of their land, and at some point in the past may have been leveraging to drive him out of business -- the same way they succeeded in driving the other ranchers in the area out of the same kind of business.

The BLM's modus operandi was to coerce ranchers into signing "contracts" consenting to terms under which it would become all-but impossible for them to continue in the ranching business. At least if they wanted to make any money from it. The others couldn't hang on, but Bundy has toughed it out.

I'm only guessing, and you can attack me for that, but I'll guess that that's why Bundy reached a point where he no longer wished to do business with a "party of the first part" that was trying (obviously) to drive him OUT of business.

Mr. Bundy may not be the proverbially-clean hound's tooth. But his "range war" has taken a bite out of the BLM -- and out of the federals -- to which many folks can relate.

And it's brought national attention to the fact that there is too much "government ownership" of land in the western states, without a compelling reason why there should BE such ownership.

Look at the way Texas is responding to the dispute with the BLM up along the Red River, in the wake of Bundy's War.

The federals may not be finished with Mr. Bundy yet.
But the issues which Bundy has raised are going to cause a lot of commotion in the future...

Offline Luis Gonzalez

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,500
    • Boiling Frogs
Re: Bundy to Congress: Rein In Harry Reid
« Reply #13 on: April 23, 2014, 12:05:46 AM »
Luis wrote:
[[ Cliven Bundy, by his own words, has declared himself an enemy of the United States by dismissing its existence, and when he boasts about waging a "range war" against the government of the United States, he is threatening to levy war against the United States.
That's the Constitutional definition of treason.  ]]

I urge you to come down off the high horse.
Why do you write as if you have something stuck up your craw about Cliven Bundy?

He may not be as pure as the driven snow, not that they get much snow where he is. He's not even close to being squeaky-clean.

Mr. Bundy actually sounds a little (or perhaps a little more) off-kilter. The same might have been said about Randy Weaver up in Idaho some years' back. But what happened to him at the hands of the federal government certainly struck a raw nerve amongst many. And he was later vindicated in court.

It's obvious that the BLM wanted Bundy's cattle off of their land, and at some point in the past may have been leveraging to drive him out of business -- the same way they succeeded in driving the other ranchers in the area out of the same kind of business.

The BLM's modus operandi was to coerce ranchers into signing "contracts" consenting to terms under which it would become all-but impossible for them to continue in the ranching business. At least if they wanted to make any money from it. The others couldn't hang on, but Bundy has toughed it out.

I'm only guessing, and you can attack me for that, but I'll guess that that's why Bundy reached a point where he no longer wished to do business with a "party of the first part" that was trying (obviously) to drive him OUT of business.

Mr. Bundy may not be the proverbially-clean hound's tooth. But his "range war" has taken a bite out of the BLM -- and out of the federals -- to which many folks can relate.

And it's brought national attention to the fact that there is too much "government ownership" of land in the western states, without a compelling reason why there should BE such ownership.

Look at the way Texas is responding to the dispute with the BLM up along the Red River, in the wake of Bundy's War.

The federals may not be finished with Mr. Bundy yet.
But the issues which Bundy has raised are going to cause a lot of commotion in the future...


Here's my primary problem with Bundy.

He may very well get people killed.

Everyone keeps talking about how the BLM drove other ranchers out of business, but they never seem to remember that it is the BLM, acting under President Reagan's Executive Order #12548 that has shielded the ranchers from the effects of inflation, and has maintained the grazing fees at levels anywhere from 17% to 6000% lower than in non-BLM managed lands, and that in fact, grazing fees, adjusted for inflation, are lower now than they have been since 1980.  Adjusted for inflation, today's $1.35 AUM works out to $0.54 per AUM in 1980 dollars, and if those fees had been allowed to grow at the rate of inflation, the grazing fee today would be nearly $6.00 AUM.

So, can you enlighten me as to the nature of the BLM contracts that drove ranchers out of business?

I've seen a whole lot of companies go out of business over the last 30 years or so. Hell, I've even seen a few industries go out (does anyone still make VHS tapes and players?), and most (if not all) have done so as a result of changes in the market. so I'd like to know what safety wall it was that the BLM removed from those ranchers that may have made their business impervious to changes in the economy and way that business is done.

Let me point one such change out to you... I sell food for a living.

People eat way more chicken than beef these days.

There was a time in America when beef was cheap and chicken was what was served for Sunday dinner, but that's not the case anymore.

Red meat consumption has been linked to cancer.

The price of beef to the consumer has risen steadily an significantly over the last three and a half decades, but poultry price by not increasing have become very accesible to shopers.

All of this, but the BLM's grazing fees actually remained unchanged.

So ranchers using public lands managed by the BLM are in fact recipients of corporate welfare. Bundy partook of that welfare for a number of years, but now he's pissed off at the source of that welfare.


Let me tell you what Bundy has as also brought attention to.

He's brought attention to the Federal subsidies that the OTHER 16,000 ranchers who are paying BLM grazing fees are receiving. Subsidies that include taxpayer-funded predator killing programs.

My problem with Bundy is that he's dead wrong, and that people may get killed because of it. 
“[Euthanasia] is what any State medical service has sooner or later got to face. If you are going to be kept alive in institutions run by and paid for by the State, you must accept the State’s right to economize when necessary …” The Ministry of Fear by Graham Green (New York: Penguin Books [1943] 2005, p. 165).

Offline Luis Gonzalez

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,500
    • Boiling Frogs
Re: Bundy to Congress: Rein In Harry Reid
« Reply #14 on: April 23, 2014, 12:06:43 AM »
Mr. Bundy was quite happy to let the devil pay the piper when the welfare deal was sweet.  The devil gets to call the tune, though, and Mr. Bundy has absolutely, positively nobody to blame but himself for the situation he got himself into.  He is as worthy of respect as is any inner city ghetto squatter refusing to vacate his apartment despite refusing to pay the rent.

And they say I'm tough on this guy.
“[Euthanasia] is what any State medical service has sooner or later got to face. If you are going to be kept alive in institutions run by and paid for by the State, you must accept the State’s right to economize when necessary …” The Ministry of Fear by Graham Green (New York: Penguin Books [1943] 2005, p. 165).


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf