| | | I would like to ask you to revisit your post to which this is a reply.
Not because I question your sincerity... rather than the opposite ? Obviously, there has been significant evolution in the awareness of the issue over the last few days... including not only shifting lines in the taking of sides... but shifting awareness in the quality of information about the specific instance.
Of course, range wars of the sort you see in old westerns might often enough include corrupt judges and senators... who pair up with corrupt financiers to try to run some rancher off the land in order to grab his water rights. Today, I suspect people who ARE paying close attention to the evolution of this story... are surprised that the story has taken the turns that it has ?
Harry Reid... couldn't be working at kicking all the ranchers out of Clark County... stealing their ranches, and stealing their water rights... without "help" from others ? Those others include JUDGES... who are just as corrupt as everyone else involved in prosecuting a STRATEGY intended to IMPLEMENT policies... that are WHOLLY ILLEGITIMATE ?
In the specific instance... the usurpation that was occurring depended on people NOT figuring out the connections between the TAKING of Bundy's rights... and the GRANTING of those rights to others...
And, the success of that effort... depended on the MEDIA NOT LOOKING... to keep the public in the dark, as the effort was prosecuted to a conclusion...
ONE MAN prevented that from succeeding... because he stood on principle. He had help. Not only did neighbors and friends come to aid his resistance... but, a handful of people over at Free Republic, many of whom are veterans of these sorts of conflicts... knew where to look for the "smoking gun" ?
This story isn't over... because the questions haven't been answered... about how it was that a couple of judges happened to ignore the facts while working to enable the government backed scheme to defraud Bundy out of his rights ?
There are a couple of relevant points that should emerge from an analysis, conducted after the fact, considering how various assumptions made in an information vacuum "worked" or did not... to enable justice being done... or to enable the opposite ?
So, I'm genuinely interested in learning how your opinion has evolved... as the amount and focus of the information has changed ?
I would find it enormously helpful... if you'd tell us what of the information that has been presented here you've considered... and how it has influenced your opinion... assuming it has changed at all ? |
|
