Judge Jeanine ON "DIRTY" HARRY, BLM LAND GRABS IN NEVADA AND TEXAS (Treasonous)

Would she have loved to present this case in front of a grand jury and say:

"Well, there WAS a document, so I heard. I don't have the document or a copy of it, but based on what I heard was the title, I've come to the following conclusion...."

Has anyone seen this document? I'd love to take a peek at it myself. Everything else she said has nothing to do with anything. She started talking about a BLM "land grab" on the Texas border and then said nothing else about it. This solar project is a recent development, what year did Cliven Bundy first get taken into court? As to this "snipers" rounding up cows BS, come on people..

As far as county governments selling public land to developers for housing developments.. SO WHAT? Shouldn't counties be the ones handling this? Don't people need a place to live in Nevada?

As to the Chinese company getting the land at a huge discount, this sounds fishy. I'd like to know more about this personally, if there is some impropriety here then it should be exposed and dealt with. If Harry Reid is dirty, let Harry Reid rot in jail but if you're going to make claims like this, you better have a lot more evidence than this wind bag is offering up.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Actual facts are anathema to infotainment. They just don't "play" well.

Remember, it's a big election year in the Lone Star State: the Houston Chronicle addressed the issues a couple of days ago.

BLM Proves Useful for Texas Politicos

If I'm not mistaken, the "Judge's" surprise mystery guest at the end is referenced in the article. Seems that the land in question has been clearly under US purview since 1986. But, don'tch'all worry y'ur pretty little heds none now ... the real Texans are on this case. LOL.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: WarminIndy

But you are ok with the bias on the other side.

So bias is fine as long as it is what you approve.

Not at all. And what a silly, sniping and baseless comment to make!

We're talking about FNC and "Judge" Jeanine because that's the core of the OP above, which opens the source (FNC) to critique.

Nothing has been posted from MSNBC, or Daily Kos, or Democratic Underground ... to name a few well-known "water carriers" for the Democratic/liberal political side ... so why on earth would I comment on those in this thread? That would be off-topic.

However, since you chose to make silly accusations, I find the left-wing lies as obnoxious as the right-wing lies.

I like as much fact as I can find.

What about you? Is it FNC "right or wrong" in your book?

I actually don't have cable so I don't watch news.

originally posted by: WarminIndy

I actually don't have cable so I don't watch news.

So how the heck can you judge anyone with an opinion about them if you aren't caught up on them?

originally posted by: MrPenny

originally posted by: WarminIndy

I actually don't have cable so I don't watch news.

So how the heck can you judge anyone with an opinion about them if you aren't caught up on them?

When I do watch news streaming on the internet, I watch all of them, then get bored with them because they are repeating the same thing over and over.

I am simply trying to get you to see that with all the mud slinging from the lower echelons, you really are doing the media the best favor, because you refuse to see bias but repeat the same thing over and over.

Where's the apology for saying Tea Party members are racist? When's that going to come?

But I asked, did you ever repeat it?

BTW, I am not a member of the Tea Party

a reply to: Gryphon66

However; if you, or anyone else, chooses to decide what you want the "truth" to be; based on your own preconceived notions, and only accept evidence that reinforces your opinion, that's up to you, and you're responsible for it.

LOL ... are you really saying you have NO preconceived notions? No filters that you judge reality though? That you're totally free from human confirmation bias?

I don't see how you get from what I said in the first quote to what you said in the second quote. The second just doesn't follow logically from the first. By implication I'm denying that I'm "choosing to decide what I want the truth to be, choosing implies a willful act, based on my own preconceived notions AND that I'm only going to accept evidence that reinforces my opinion.

You're saying in the second quote that I'm claiming to have no preconceived notions, no filters and that I'm free from bias. Which, I'm clearly not saying in the first quote. It's just not there, no matter how much you'd like it to be. Though why you'd like it to be there puzzles me.

Did you read the final paragraph of my post where I wrote a book I'd heard of, the premise of which I'm not inclined to agree with at first blush, but I would like to read since it might add some balance to my own position on the matter? Does that sound to you like someone that believes they have no preconceived notions, no filters and blah blah blah that might influence them in such a way as to prevent them from getting to the truth of the matter?

In any case, since I simply threw your statement back at you and you've interpreted it thus, maybe the better, and much more interesting question is:

So Gryphon, are you saying that you have NO preconceived notions? No Filters that you judge reality through? That you're totally free from human confirmation bias?

so you simply turn around what I stated as if it were your own novel idea?

Huh? What suggests to you that I was trying to pass that off as my own novel idea? I think it was pretty clear that I was throwing your own statement back at you. And just so you know, you original statement wasn't that clever, had a snide feel to it, and I wouldn't brag about it being your idea if I were you.

So, without delving into mere semantics . . .

Based on your statements that I've responded to above, you seem to have a rather tenuous grasp on semantics and you might actually want to delve into it.

How would you verify, for example, that Representative Amodei trusts the new BLM director, exactly?

I'll wait and see what else surfaces. I might do some research on Amodei and try to get a sense of the man, particularly if I think it's a critical piece of the puzzle, which at the moment I don't. As time goes by and more information comes to light/or if it comes to light I may assign a greater value to Amodei's statements, or perhaps a lesser one in my decision making process. However, I'm not on any deadline to render a hard and fast opinion; and frankly, I'm not required to ever render one. As I said, I may end up with nothing more than "I don't know."

What I won't do is dismiss and charges leveled at Reid regarding the head of the BLM, simply because, in essence, Amodei said "he's a good guy . . . nothing to see here folks . . . move along" I mean if there are dirty dealings going on in Nevada, isn't it possible that, as one of the Representatives from Nevada, he might also be involved? I think it's a more than a little naïve to suggest, as your post did, that corruption in government never crosses party lines.

And I'm not talking about blind trust or wide-open gullibility, but, on the contrary, it's also illogical to assume that everyone, everywhere is simply lying all the time

Again with assigning statements to me that I never made. If I had meant to say that everyone, everywhere is lying all the time I would have said so, but I didn't. I said I thought politicians, regardless of political affiliation, were crooks and dishonest and that I don't trust the MSM. Where do you get everyone, everywhere and all the time out of that? You also might have noted that I said I didn't know if Amodei's statements were dishonest, (Which by the by, sort of suggests that I don't think even all Politician's are lying everywhere and all the time), I simply not going to assume that they were honest since he was commenting on an opposing party member, as you implied. I accept the idea that a Politician from one party might engage in dishonesty on behalf a Politician from an opposing party, which apparently you don't? Or is it that you only deny that possibility when the statement supports your views?

Viewing material critically says "what is the best evidence available" and then "what does the evidence say."

Not necessarily and certainly not if the situation doesn't require you to render a judgment, or perhaps in this case I'm reading more into what you've written that you're actually saying. By that I mean I allow for the fact that I might find none of the evidence credible, and that what evidence there is, is too conflicting to render a sound decision. I would probably make a best guess based on "what is the best evidence available" and "what does the evidence say" if there is a compelling reason to make a decision, absent that I think its better to simply say "I don't know" if the evidence doesn't support a clear and solid conclusion. I'm not sure that we disagree on this or not, though it might be the crux of the issue.


Gryphon, I enjoy a good debate. However, I'd appreciate it if you didn't misrepresent my statements/opinions or make unfounded accusations going forward. I realize it's just some people's style, but those kind of things turn the conversation into more of a brawl with a troll than a fencing match with a skilled opponent. My time here is limited, and I'd rather not spend it engaged in the former.

Cheers.

a reply to: imwilliam

Wow.

You certainly took a lot of your precious time to respond to someone unskilled, in your opinion, in semantics, and little better than a troll!

Here's my issue with what you've said here, succinctly, and you'll see why I really have no interest in continuing the off-topic interchange ... you're not saying anything.

You responded to the quote from Representative Amodei with a vague suggestion that you doubted what he said without further verification. I pointed out, quite clearly, that since it was HIS statement about HIS opinion, there really was no other verification possible. I queried you, lightly, about how you determine what you believe to be true, and again you've wandered off into vague non-committal commentary, attempting to turn the conversation into a meta-discussion about my posting methods.

For example, now, you're citing me for "assigning statements to you that you never made." Are you familiar with the concept of speaking rhetorically rather than specifically? Do you see anywhere in my post were I said "And imwilliam, as you said ..." and then proceeded to misquote you? No?

Do you know why? Because I didn't say that. Perhaps you should read what is written rather than what you wish to see. Notice the "?" mark at the end of my sentences? I was asking you questions not making statements about you.

But, no matter. This is pointless and off-topic. I don't think either of us have the time for such pointless, off-topic, interaction.

Best.

originally posted by: WarminIndy

I am simply trying to get you to see that with all the mud slinging from the lower echelons, you really are doing the media the best favor, because you refuse to see bias but repeat the same thing over and over.

Where's the apology for saying Tea Party members are racist? When's that going to come?

But I asked, did you ever repeat it?

BTW, I am not a member of the Tea Party

I cannot figure out what most of this is supposed to mean. Are you looking for an apology from me? How can I be "refusing to see bias" while I'm pointing out bias? Repeat what?

Are you OK?

a reply to: Gryphon66

Here's my issue with what you've said here, succinctly, and you'll see why I really have no interest in continuing the off-topic interchange

I understand Gryphon, you're embarrassed at being called out for debating like a troll. No worries, I accept your apology and we don't need to speak of it further.

Cheers.

originally posted by: imwilliam

I understand Gryphon, you're embarrassed at being called out for debating like a troll. No worries, I accept your apology and we don't need to speak of it further.

Cheers.

LOL ... isn't that cute? Problem is, there's not been a debate here. There's only been me, trying to get you to say something of substance and you, responding with quippish nonsense like this.

Anytime you're ready for a debate, a discussion, a vigorous exchange, or anything vaguely resembling any of those on the topic of this discussion, or on the point where you and I began interacting, I'm more than glad to oblige.

Here, I'll even summarize where we were for your convenience:

1. "Judge" Jeanine, an entertainment personality on FNC, made a series of assertions about Senator Harry Reid for which she provided very few to no actual facts (in my opinion). She implied that Senator Reid is some kind of criminal mastermind involved in elaborate schemes regarding "land grabs" in Nevada (ancillary to the Bundy boondoggle) etc. etc. She implied that the current head of the BLM is a mere puppet of Mr. Reid, and that Reid directed the recent events at the Bundy rance even though a) the timeline doesn't make any sense and b) there's absolutely no evidence of that happening. She made lots of provocative, reality TV-style, baseless threats. Discuss, pro or con. Provide actual facts, quotes, references, citations, etc. that support any assertions, ideas, opinions or beliefs you express if you please.

2. I provided a reference citing the comments of Nevada Representative Amodei regarding BLM Director Kornze. You dismissed this out of hand because "you don't trust politicians." I queried then how we can know much about what anyone believes about anything, if we can't at some level, take their word for it. What criteria do we verify commentary with? Surely, at some point we have to accept some material as baseline facts ... I wonder what that baseline is for you in this regard? Is it based on your political ideologies? Your knowledge of this situation? What is the criteria?

There. See? Not a troll at all.

At least, not on this side of the bridge ...

Gryphon,

I went through and showed how you'd misrepresented my statements as well as answered your ridiculous charge that I'd presented one of your statements/ideas as my own. To put it bluntly, you were being dishonest, and continue to be so.

Beyond that, I think if anyone has any interest in this little head to head between you and I, they can look back at what I actually said, what you actually said and arrive at their own conclusions.

Cheers

So, if there happens to be anyone who actually wants to discuss issues rather than egos here ...

So far, the thread has posed Reid as a villain both in regard to the Bundy Ranch situation, and the wider situation in Nevada with "land grabs" and possible collusion with the Chinese (despite the fact that deal fell away almost a year ago).

The Wall Street Journal, a notably more conservative voice in recent years since Murdock's acquisition, posted an article: Harry Reid Becomes a Republican Campaign Fixture. Basically, with the faltering interest in repealing the ACA (apparently the strongest issue for the mid-terms) the article suggests that Republicans are ginning up Reid animus in order to energize the base:

Mr. Reid is much better known—and disliked—by the party's most conservative supporters.

Among Republicans who identify as tea-party supporters, the Pew poll found, 82% had an unfavorable opinion of Mr. Reid, and only 9% couldn't express an opinion.

Kirsten Kukowski, an RNC spokeswoman, said the party would try to make Mr. Reid as famous as Mrs. Pelosi. "Harry Reid is just as much, if not more, of a lightning rod with our base, and now we have to educate the rest," she said.

So ... how does this play into the emotional appeal from the "Judge" in the OP, do you think?

The government hates the Tea Party because they know that the Tea Party knows that the fed is a fraud. They don't want that information to spread.

originally posted by: amfirst1
The government hates the Tea Party because they know that the Tea Party knows that the fed is a fraud. They don't want that information to spread.

And here you are...happily blabbing about the fraudulent fed without a care in the world.

We should get some t-shirts printed up.

What you know that Judge Jeanine Youtube video is already taken down.

a reply to: sean

This looks like a close copy of the original video.

It is a bit shorter BUT has the ... Meat-and-Potatoes.

NEW (close copy of) VIDEO

OR

YouTube's SEARCH RESULTS for ... "judge jeanine harry reid".
.

originally posted by: sean
What you know that Judge Jeanine Youtube video is already taken down.

ROFLOL

Harry's tentacles are everywhere.

I wonder how many "staffers" are on his call of duty list these days ?

LOL

originally posted by: benrl

originally posted by: buster2010
a reply to: MALBOSIA

Is Harry not damaging an American cattle farm, ultimately for the creation of a Chinese owned solar power farm?

Actually no he isn't because the land doesn't belong to Bundy it does belong to the federal government. So the judge is just making herself look ignorant by saying land grab over and over again. But then again it is FOX.

Legality is a poor excuse for morally reprehensible behavior, but seems to be par the course for american Politics.

I could list numerous morally offensive legalities that the American people have allowed since 2001, but as you say, I guess if its legal its all okay.

That sir is brilliant. Exactly what I try and tell people all the time who think the law is always right. I can never find the right words so from now on I will use yours.

originally posted by: Silicis n Volvo

originally posted by: benrl

originally posted by: buster2010
a reply to: MALBOSIA

Is Harry not damaging an American cattle farm, ultimately for the creation of a Chinese owned solar power farm?

Actually no he isn't because the land doesn't belong to Bundy it does belong to the federal government. So the judge is just making herself look ignorant by saying land grab over and over again. But then again it is FOX.

Legality is a poor excuse for morally reprehensible behavior, but seems to be par the course for american Politics.

I could list numerous morally offensive legalities that the American people have allowed since 2001, but as you say, I guess if its legal its all okay.

That sir is brilliant. Exactly what I try and tell people all the time who think the law is always right. I can never find the right words so from now on I will use yours.

The law is never always right.

Even as a member of the Constitution Party, I recognize this. If I were to run for president (not going to though), there are many things I would like to see changed in the dialogue.

For instance, the 2nd Amendment says we have the right to keep and bear arms. Yes we do, because that right was addressed throughout several thousand years of history, however, I myself do not have a gun. Does that mean my neighbor should not? No, if my neighbor feels like they need a gun, then by all means.

But, and this might be a sticky point, we do need gun regulation because of the black market and illegal guns that are easy to obtain. How is it that people can buy rocket launchers on the black market? How is this even possible?

Some weapons should just not be available. I live near Indianapolis that now, this early in the year, has already had more murders than Chicago. But how did we get to such a culture that bad guys can get as many guns as they want while good, law abiding citizens are lambasted for gun ownership?

Clive Bundy has a Constitutional right to have guns, as do the Crips and Bloods of Los Angeles. Isn't that sad? But no one criticizes thug culture and rap music that openly displays gun violence. Let's talk about Clive Bundy, but not the Crips and Bloods.

Let's talk about Clive Bundy's supposed racist remarks, but let's not talk about racism from any other group. We are unbalanced as a society. It seems to me that this whole incident is nothing different than Ruby Ridge, in which I feel the FBI was wrong in that. They shot his son and his wife, who had nothing to do with it.

Leonard Peltier is another example as well as the Siege at Wounded Knee. These are both examples of using legality of unfair laws. The law is not always right, but as a society, we really need to sit down and discuss what is acceptable as a society and remember that this government is supposed to be of the people, by the people and for the people. The minute we allowed our representatives and senators to assume so great power, the government is no longer of the people.

We want term limits, but guess what, the very people who would make the laws about term limits are the ones who don't want term limits, and yet people keep voting them in. Stop voting them in.

Unless we the people act now, even our right to vote will eventually be taken away, by the very people we entrusted to represent us.

a reply to: FarleyWayne

Thank you for doing that. I have been off doing other things, come back and see the video closed....

But, like I figured, a good ATS member was able to correct that. THANK YOU>