Deleted Comments Of The Day: How Dare You Call Bundy Ranch Freedom Warriors Names, You Pig Bitch?

The ol' comment queue is in need of a good hosing-out, so let's see what detritus is in there. Looks like our stories on theCletus  Cliven Bundy and the Big Cattle Freedom Uprisinggenerated a lot of interest among new visitors to Yr Wonkette, to whom we say Hello, welcome, and thank you for your interest! We'll start with this enlightened American's brief email to Yr Editrix from an anonymous reader who did not care for the description of Mr. Bundy's militia pals as "insurgents," even though we included a definition of that very term right in the lede. All spelling and spacing verbatim from the original:

You should shut your piece of shit blog down you scum sucking pig bitch. Calling a group of Ameriucans fighting for your fucking rights "insurgents". Gol ive in china you commie bitch

He (?) seems nice! We especially like the notion that a bunch of armed anarchists who want to enable a guy's deliberate refusal to comply with laws, land use fees, and court orders are "fighting for our rights" somehow, and that, simultaneously, we should be deported because we publish stuff this dunderwhelp disagrees with.

One "jeromyadams," who replied to our very first story on BundyPalooza, apparently though that while it's appropriate for The People to have guns, it's unfair for the Bureau of Land Management to protect its own officers:

On a side note, I wonder how much money we spent to militarize the Bureau of Land Management. Why in the world do they have Attack dogs and snipers in the first place? They should have survey equipment and lawyers. That's what they're supposed to be doing. Measuring things and suing people.

While we share your concerns about the militarization of police forces, jeromyadams, we also think maybe when someone has been telling Fox News all week that he's got lots of guns and is prepared to "do whatever's necessary," perhaps it's best to Be Prepared. We'd also point out that Mr. Bundy hasn't complied with court orders to get his cattle off federal land. (Also, while we haven't researched it in great detail, our impression was that multiple law enforcement agencies were involved, not just the BLM.)

"Nyjsec314" also has some issues with the way the operation was handled:

And so I guess in your reasoning, the shock and awe tactics used by the government, including positioning snipers and bellicose chasing cattle literally to death, was an appropriate and humane solution to the Bundy problem. Okay then.

Not quite sure how using SWAT-style resources when dealing with a group of armed people who keep saying they can hardly wait to take out some federal thugs is a "shock and awe" tactic -- pretty sure no cruise missiles or 500 lb. bombs were used. For that matter, most reports of "snipers" have come from less than reliable sources like InfoWars and WND, as have the allegations that the feds were harassing cattle to death -- hardly a logical course of action when the seizure of the cattle was supposed to defray at least some of Bundy's unpaid grazing fees.

"Grannymiller" offers some good old-fashioned frontier gibberish:

Obviously no farmers or ranchers here. Just toadies for big corporate food and corporate energy. Looks to me like most comments are coming from city slickers who decry the loss of family farms and ranches but haven't a clue about agriculture. The Bundy's own the surface grazing rights. Those rights are deeded rights. As in DEED. As in legal property. As in OGM rights. They PAID for those right in the 1870's. Those rights have NOT BEEN SOLD! Amazing to me millions of tax dollars were spent to intimated a small family owned ranch. Too bad more people don't understand where their food comes. Now go back to sleep and feel good about yourself the next time you shop Whole Foods or your local Farmer's Market.

Pretty weird how Bundy's claims about his inviolable rights to federally owned land haven't held up in court. It's not like we made that up in our mommyblog, Grannymiller. He's lost in court repeatedly. You'd think that if he were right, maybe he would have proven his case? Yes, yes, we know: big government all conspiring to destroy him. Also, we know quite well where our food comes from: Hideous factory farms with exploding foamy pigshit. 

We also heard from amateur attorney "Madison_Stone," who explains that, as usual, the entire mainstream media have ignored the Real Truth of the matter, which is that the Federal Government just plain can't own land or something like that (and damned if we are not going to waste time trying to carefully decipher the blog linked at the end of "Madison_Stone's" comment -- that's something that our many law-talking-people readers can hash out):

There is almost no facet of this story being truthfully represented in the mainstream media (of those few whom chose *not* to follow orders to ignore it). The oft cited Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 that many claim gives the Federal Government powers to own state land is actually followed by text clearly stating when this is allowed. In the case of Nevada, the government's claim of ownership is clearly outside those very narrowly specified exceptions. Read more here. 

We'll simply add that whatever the merits of your alleged legal arguments, they are probably not enhanced by the suggestion that the news media are controlled by shadowy unnameable forces that they dare not defy.

Someone with the astonishingly specific username "ItsSatire" took issue with our post this morning about former sheriff Richard Mack and his never-implemented plan to respond to a possible firefight with the Feds by sending women to the front of the group, so they could be seen getting shot by the jackbooted thugs. Ah, but in four comments, all pretty much like the following, "ItsSatire" pointed out that we'd been hoodwinked by one of those fake news sites like The Onion or the National Report or The New York Times:

Hey everyone, THIS ARTICLE IS SATIRE. READ THE WEBSITE INFO. This is such bullshit, everyone believes it because nobody knows how to just look at the page and check. And it's a shame assholes like this would spread such horrible disinformation against the American people.

We used Talking Points Memo and The Blaze for that story, as well as a clip from Fox News. While we don't necessarily have the highest opinion of Glenn Beck's The Blaze or Fox, we're pretty sure they're not "satire." Or maybe we're the ones ItsSatire is warning about?

Our initial story about the standoff was not at all appreciated by "CBrooks1976," who was pretty much disgusted that with liberty and freedom on the line, we would make uncouth adolescent jokes with our headline:

Couldn't get passed the headline, only a degenerate would write something like that. Not only does is show you have zero class, but it makes clear how cynical and twisted your thinking is.

Thank you! We certainly try! But don't get too upset -- it's satire. Read the site description!

Finally, a would-be commenter with the excellent username "wingnut1776" complained,

so apparently I'm not allowed to post how utterly insane all of you sound.

Yep, that's about the shape of it. We moderate our comments here so that our happy little mommyblog is enjoyed by its real audience. It's our parlor, and we get to decide who we invite in for tea, cakes we like, and buttsechs. That's not censorship, it's freedom of the press, yay! Now get out there and defy some federal laws so that everyone will know how much you love the Constitution!

 Follow Doktor Zoom on Twitter. He never follows George Soros's orders, mostly because the checks keep bouncing.