Funeral For Man Killed By BLM Agents « CBS Las Vegas We've been questioning the strong-arm, over-the-top actions of the BLM/government. Here's another case. A man died. There were eventually three heavily-armed agents of the government, one unarmed black man, and he is dead. They had to shoot him. Racist? We are unlikely to get the media digging into their past or following them around with cameras and tape recorders...but you have to ask the question: They couldn't have subdued this man without resorting to arms? When you carry a hammer, everything looks like a nail. In this case, a black man is dead at the hands of government agents. Part and parcel of the links provided in earlier posts detailing botched paramilitary raids, a number of them where innocents have died, a number of them where non-violent offenders have died. At the hands of government agents. At the hands of those sworn to serve and protect. Is it any wonder that Bundy called for friends and supporters to help defend against the warrior cops.? When I make a mistake in my job, I pay. Having read Radley Balko's expose on The Rise of the Warrior Cop, having seen the response from the government, detailed in Balko's book...denial, minimizing, excuses...I fear for Bundy. One could ask why racism is relevant to the conversation. Are Bundy's "crimes" more reprehensible because he used words incorrectly? Candidate Obama was/is a racist and a bigot--you cannot take his words about Christians who "cling to their guns and religion" any other way. The only reason we are hearing about alleged racism is because the establishment media is demonizing the man, as was done to Koresh, as was done to Randy Weaver, as has been done to countless others who ran counter to the government's wishes. The articles posted to present another side to the New York Times piece do illustrate that there was more to the story. But the point was to demonize Bundy and so any flavor that watered down the hatred the piece was intended to engender was left out. Slaves with weekends off are not free. I don't see the point of anyone suggesting entirely without proof that there are more green ones than yellow ones who receive subsidies. Bundy's point is that the subsidies deter them from seeking to improve their situation. Obama's policy to subsidize the wealthy white rich, who already have a hand up, do not need subsidies to improve their situation. On top of that, many of them failed, they went bankrupt. Obama's policy is itself racist. Why is he subsidizing the white rich people?