The Flat Earth Society
Other Discussion Boards => Philosophy, Religion & Society => Topic started by: Saddam Hussein on April 26, 2014, 06:32:27 PM
-
Apparently this guy has been grazing his cattle on public land for years and refuses to pay grazing fees to the US govt because he doesn't believe the US govt even exists (while riding around on a horse waving a US flag). From what I understand the grazing fees on public land are much less than they are on private land (like less than $2 per cow and calf compared to about $16 a month). Conservative media fell all over itself praising this guy for standing up the Feds, and he's been giving press conferences almost every day... but now that he's been on camera "a wondering" if the negro wasn't better off as slaves picking cotton they've had to distance themselves from him.
What really boggles my mind is that so many people showed up to defend him, armed with weapons, threatening to put their women out front as human shields. What's wrong with these people? These are the same people who denigrate poor people for being lazy govt moochers. Why should this guy get to graze his cattle for free? The claims he has made to the land are seriously questionable. I don't if he really believes what he's saying, or if he's flat out lying:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/04/22/property-records-cast-doubt-on-cliven-bundys-ancestral-claims-to-disputed-federal-land/
Also, this:
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/bundy-ranch-uncensored
-
Blacks would make good manual labor slaves. Why hasn't anyone thought of that before? This man is a visionary.
-
I thought Jon Stewart's rant against Hannity covered the contradictions pretty well.
http://thedailyshow.cc.com/full-episodes/jxvcqy/april-23--2014---robin-roberts
-
He sounds like a bit of a nutter.
I hope they throw the book at him. Why should he make money (that's what he's doing) from land he doesn't own? I would say he's committing theft against the tax payer.
-
That guy's hilarious. I love him.
-
I really don't understand why this guy is getting so much attention.
How is he different than all the other racist rednecks I meet everyday? My theory is that the media found him amusing so they chose him to be their new face of bigotry. I doubt he'll surpass his predecessor though, Kanye West.
-
I never hear about these news articles that rile up Saddam until Saddam actually posts them here. Funny.
-
Apparently this guy has been grazing his cattle on public land for years and refuses to pay grazing fees to the US govt because he doesn't believe the US govt even exists (while riding around on a horse waving a US flag). From what I understand the grazing fees on public land are much less than they are on private land (like less than $2 per cow and calf compared to about $16 a month). Conservative media fell all over itself praising this guy for standing up the Feds, and he's been giving press conferences almost every day... but now that he's been on camera "a wondering" if the negro wasn't better off as slaves picking cotton they've had to distance themselves from him.
What really boggles my mind is that so many people showed up to defend him, armed with weapons, threatening to put their women out front as human shields. What's wrong with these people? These are the same people who denigrate poor people for being lazy govt moochers. Why should this guy get to graze his cattle for free? The claims he has made to the land are seriously questionable. I don't if he really believes what he's saying, or if he's flat out lying:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/04/22/property-records-cast-doubt-on-cliven-bundys-ancestral-claims-to-disputed-federal-land/ (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/04/22/property-records-cast-doubt-on-cliven-bundys-ancestral-claims-to-disputed-federal-land/)
Also, this:
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/bundy-ranch-uncensored (http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/bundy-ranch-uncensored)
It's really simple actually:
America is polarized. The Republican party has spent a lot of money to do everything they can to get their base very angry at the other side. For the most part this works and the more radical you are, the better it works. I'm not sure their motive but it's probably just ratings.
Anyway, because it's so polarized anyone seen as "fighting the government" is looked upon as patriotic because the government is run by "The other Party". I promise you that if a Republican president did this, Mr. Bundy would have been shown to be a radial and Anti-American. Possibly even with a spin as a "Democratic moocher". But a Democratic president is in power and any chance to spin this as being against "his" government is a chance they jump on.
Then the racist comment went out and all the politicans ran. That, to me, is the funniest part of this: The Republicans will drop support the moment you say something that can be used against them.
I thought Jon Stewart's rant against Hannity covered the contradictions pretty well.
http://thedailyshow.cc.com/full-episodes/jxvcqy/april-23--2014---robin-roberts (http://thedailyshow.cc.com/full-episodes/jxvcqy/april-23--2014---robin-roberts)
That was brilliant.
-
I really don't understand why this guy is getting so much attention.
How is he different than all the other racist rednecks I meet everyday? My theory is that the media found him amusing so they chose him to be their new face of bigotry. I doubt he'll surpass his predecessor though, Kanye West.
It wasn't about the racism at first. He was mostly a mascot for conservatives and maybe libertarians (not sure how they feel about this guy) in the fight against the government or something.
-
or something.
Key words.
-
or something.
Key words.
I really don't watch Fox News enough to understand it. :/
-
I don't have cable television by choice, so I have no idea what is going on.
-
I don't have cable television by choice
Neither do I.
-
How is he different than all the other racist rednecks I meet everyday?
You live in Birmingham, England. How do you meet Rednecks every day?
Also, I have to agree that welfare negroes aren't very much help to America.
-
You live in Birmingham, England. How do you meet Rednecks every day?
Where did you get this information?
-
I'm pretty sure we had a conversation on the old forum where you told me about the shit pit you live in. I think someone tried to stab you or something?
Oh hang on, I've been mixing you up with Ghost Spaghetti. If you will pick similar names, I can't be held responsible for confusing you. Now I don't know anything about you. You've been merged with him in my mind. Would you mind sharing a computer with him or collaborating on posts? I don't want to have to learn about another individual. There are too many of you already.
-
I love America for providing drama like this. Such a tiny issue ballooned into sweet mountains of popcorn.
-
I'm pretty sure we had a conversation on the old forum where you told me about the shit pit you live in. I think someone tried to stab you or something?
Oh hang on, I've been mixing you up with Ghost Spaghetti. If you will pick similar names, I can't be held responsible for confusing you. Now I don't know anything about you. You've been merged with him in my mind. Would you mind sharing a computer with him or collaborating on posts? I don't want to have to learn about another individual. There are too many of you already.
Better?
-
I love America for providing drama like this. Such a tiny issue ballooned into sweet mountains of popcorn.
Tensions against big government have been rising for awhile. It seems like conservatives and libertarians are anxious to have a reason to start a revolution. Maybe they thought they could rally behind this guy to start the ball rolling. So even though this is technically a small issue, it kind of represents a lot of growing resentment.
-
I love America for providing drama like this. Such a tiny issue ballooned into sweet mountains of popcorn.
Tensions against big government have been rising for awhile. It seems like conservatives and libertarians are anxious to have a reason to start a revolution. Maybe they thought they could rally behind this guy to start the ball rolling. So even though this is technically a small issue, it kind of represents a lot of growing resentment.
Well, the tea tax was technically a small issue.
-
I'm pretty sure we had a conversation on the old forum where you told me about the shit pit you live in. I think someone tried to stab you or something?
Oh hang on, I've been mixing you up with Ghost Spaghetti. If you will pick similar names, I can't be held responsible for confusing you. Now I don't know anything about you. You've been merged with him in my mind. Would you mind sharing a computer with him or collaborating on posts? I don't want to have to learn about another individual. There are too many of you already.
Better?
Are you a chubby girl that thinks she can sing? Seriously, I can't keep up with all the people that come and go.
-
I'm pretty sure we had a conversation on the old forum where you told me about the shit pit you live in. I think someone tried to stab you or something?
Oh hang on, I've been mixing you up with Ghost Spaghetti. If you will pick similar names, I can't be held responsible for confusing you. Now I don't know anything about you. You've been merged with him in my mind. Would you mind sharing a computer with him or collaborating on posts? I don't want to have to learn about another individual. There are too many of you already.
Better?
Are you a chubby girl that thinks she can sing? Seriously, I can't keep up with all the people that come and go.
I've been around only slightly longer than you and I'm aware of Vauxy. You're an old man.
-
The OP is actually plagiarized from SCG on the other site. I guess she - and by extension, I - was assuming that you were all somewhat familiar with the story already. If you're not, then the basic situation is that when the BLM came to physically enforce all the laws that Bundy had broken and the court rulings against him, Bundy had rounded up a mob of armed rednecks and started a huge scene. You can read about it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_standoff
That's why he's a big deal - not because he's a nut, but because he's gone further than anyone else in trying to make his nut fantasies come true. Most of these sovereign citizen/tax protester/states' rights loonies don't do much more than drive without licenses and cheat on their taxes. Anyway, the conservative politicians and talking heads who were endorsing Bundy's cause have no one to blame but themselves for the fallout now that he's revealed his racism. They allied themselves with someone who was clearly a nut to try and score a few political points, and it backfired spectacularly.
-
Seriously, fuck him. The asshole had a stretch of I-15 shutdown a couple weeks ago with his redneck supporters. Secret User and I did get front row seats to the show on a trip we were taking. A bunch of good ol' boys aiming their rifles at BLM Rangers. The reality is that if there was a conflict, those douchebags would have had no chance. The BLM brought some seriously armed support. Fatigues, assault rifles, sniper rifles. Drove right by them on the way back when they shut everything down again so NHP could ensure all of BLM could safely leave the area. Mothers carrying their babies on the freeway with their Don't Tread on Me flags...
So yeah, we got to experience it firsthand...
-
In other countries, they'd be labeled terrorists and shot.
-
From everything I've read about this incident it seems like Bundy was completely in the wrong and being a huge redneck about the whole situation. The armed stand-off was completely unnecessary.
This is what happens when you don't give hillbillies enough attention as children, they seek it elsewhere.
-
SU and I were going to take pics and post before, but we decided we didn't want to add to the publicity that he didn't deserve. Nevada is an open carry state, but it is still a crime to aim a firearm at another person. They should have been arrested. It was incredibly tense driving by, though.
-
From everything I've read about this incident it seems like Bundy was completely in the wrong and being a huge redneck about the whole situation. The armed stand-off was completely unnecessary.
This is what happens when you don't give hillbillies enough attention as children, they seek it elsewhere.
Of course he was in the wrong. But conservatives don't like or sometimes even recognize federal government. I'm getting sick of the division all the together. Maybe I just see more of this mentality because I live in the south, but I wish they'd just have their revolution or shut up.
-
From everything I've read about this incident it seems like Bundy was completely in the wrong and being a huge redneck about the whole situation. The armed stand-off was completely unnecessary.
This is what happens when you don't give hillbillies enough attention as children, they seek it elsewhere.
Of course he was in the wrong. But conservatives don't like or sometimes even recognize federal government. I'm getting sick of the division all the together. Maybe I just see more of this mentality because I live in the south, but I wish they'd just have their revolution or shut up.
Hillbilly revolution? I'd like to see that.
-
From everything I've read about this incident it seems like Bundy was completely in the wrong and being a huge redneck about the whole situation. The armed stand-off was completely unnecessary.
This is what happens when you don't give hillbillies enough attention as children, they seek it elsewhere.
Of course he was in the wrong. But conservatives don't like or sometimes even recognize federal government. I'm getting sick of the division all the together. Maybe I just see more of this mentality because I live in the south, but I wish they'd just have their revolution or shut up.
Me too. It would be devastating to them.
First the politicians would mostly condemn them (aside from those who work in the state that revolt)
Next, the US military would come in and all the guns they'd stock pile will bounce off the tank armor. Some would surrender, others would shoot back. Then be sieged until they gave up.
-
Next, the US military would come in and all the guns they'd stock pile will bounce off the tank armor.
Well, that really just depends. You'll be surpised and/or disturbed at the fact that there are quite a few people who can disable a tank.
-
Next, the US military would come in and all the guns they'd stock pile will bounce off the tank armor.
Well, that really just depends. You'll be surpised and/or disturbed at the fact that there are quite a few people who can disable a tank.
With a gun? Or just by knowing the specifics about how said tank works and how to disable it?
-
With a gun?
Yes, if we want to be pedantic about it, but you probably wouldn't call it a gun. There are all sorts of things that can disable tanks, which is why they are not used for small engagements. I doubt they'd ever use tanks, regardless.
-
With a gun?
Yes, if we want to be pedantic about it, but you probably wouldn't call it a gun. There are all sorts of things that can disable tanks, which is why they are not used for small engagements. I doubt they'd ever use tanks, regardless.
Fair enough. But my point being that a rebellion would be crushed quickly. Though it may live on just like the confederacy does now.
-
And the Republican party wonders why it can't appeal to moderates and young voters.
-
SU and I were going to take pics and post before, but we decided we didn't want to add to the publicity that he didn't deserve. Nevada is an open carry state, but it is still a crime to aim a firearm at another person. They should have been arrested. It was incredibly tense driving by, though.
The only problem with this line of thought is that these people don't recognize the power of the federal government. They think that the county sheriff is the only authority who is legally allowed to enforce laws.
-
SU and I were going to take pics and post before, but we decided we didn't want to add to the publicity that he didn't deserve. Nevada is an open carry state, but it is still a crime to aim a firearm at another person. They should have been arrested. It was incredibly tense driving by, though.
The only problem with this line of thought is that these people don't recognize the power of the federal government. They think that the county sheriff is the only authority who is legally allowed to enforce laws.
Yes...and they're wrong. What's the problem again?
-
The problem is that people tend to get killed in the process.
-
SU and I were going to take pics and post before, but we decided we didn't want to add to the publicity that he didn't deserve. Nevada is an open carry state, but it is still a crime to aim a firearm at another person. They should have been arrested. It was incredibly tense driving by, though.
The only problem with this line of thought is that these people don't recognize the power of the federal government. They think that the county sheriff is the only authority who is legally allowed to enforce laws.
Get the county sheriff to sort them out then.
-
SU and I were going to take pics and post before, but we decided we didn't want to add to the publicity that he didn't deserve. Nevada is an open carry state, but it is still a crime to aim a firearm at another person. They should have been arrested. It was incredibly tense driving by, though.
The only problem with this line of thought is that these people don't recognize the power of the federal government. They think that the county sheriff is the only authority who is legally allowed to enforce laws.
Yes, I was referring to local law enforcement making the arrests, not BLM. There was a massive presence of Nevada Highway Patrol there, literally in the middle. Basically, on the Northbound side of the Interstate was Clive & Company, and the Southbound side was BLM. NHP was in between the two. There were several "protestors" aiming their rifles directly at BLM Rangers in the presence of NHP. That is certainly a local crime, and they should have been arrested.
What SU and I experienced was on a Saturday. It was the day the BLM agreed to leave. Apparently the rednecks who traveled from many states were not ready for the party to be over. They stayed for days, and a few of them did manage to get arrested for other things, well after the drama was over.
-
I saw this guy on Jon Stewart. Hilarious. The racist element adds a new but expected dimension.
He's a tax dodging idiot. Republicans like him because taxes are evil. And by association welfare benefits are evil.
-
I'm pretty sure we had a conversation on the old forum where you told me about the shit pit you live in. I think someone tried to stab you or something?
Oh hang on, I've been mixing you up with Ghost Spaghetti. If you will pick similar names, I can't be held responsible for confusing you. Now I don't know anything about you. You've been merged with him in my mind. Would you mind sharing a computer with him or collaborating on posts? I don't want to have to learn about another individual. There are too many of you already.
I'm so glad I decided to visit today.
-
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/bundy-ranch-militia-checkpoints-horsford
what
-
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/bundy-ranch-militia-checkpoints-horsford
what
Yep... Thankfully those folks don't venture into the city much.
-
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/bundy-ranch-militia-checkpoints-horsford
what
Unless its a private road, pretty sure this is illegal.
-
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/bundy-ranch-militia-checkpoints-horsford
what
Unless its a private road, pretty sure this is illegal.
Why would a trivial detail like that stop these guys?
-
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/bundy-ranch-militia-checkpoints-horsford
what
Unless its a private road, pretty sure this is illegal.
Even if it is, I'm pretty sure that's illegal
-
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/bundy-ranch-militia-checkpoints-horsford
what
What the fuck?
-
In any other country this would be terrorism but here its patriotism to half the country.
Worse yet, no one can do a thing about it without committing political suicide.
-
Just arrest this lunatic, already. Why has it even been allowed to get to these ridiculous levels?
Thork, I'm hurt you couldn't tell us apart. Am I going to have to go back to having the shouty woman as my avatar again?
-
The law needs to be applied.
Arrest the idiot and his idiot followers.
-
It is so exciting that all of this is occurring just 130km from where I live.
-
It is so exciting that all of this is occurring just 130km from where I live.
Go and conduct a citizen arrest.
-
It is so exciting that all of this is occurring just 130km from where I live.
You should go there under the auspices of being a fertilizer salesman.
-
I have lived here most of life and didn't know Bunkerville was even a place until last month when Secret User and I were stuck in traffic on the last day of the standoff. These guys are serious fanatics, so I will refrain from going anywhere near the place.
-
I have lived here most of life and didn't know Bunkerville was even a place until last month when Secret User and I were stuck in traffic on the last day of the standoff. These guys are serious fanatics, so I will refrain from going anywhere near the place.
Boring scaredy pants.
-
So if you don't live there then you're not allowed in?
How does that even make sense? Don't they understand that people can go places that they don't own?
-
So if you don't live there then you're not allowed in?
How does that even make sense? Don't they understand that people can go places that they don't own?
Cliven Bundy certainly does.
-
So if you don't live there then you're not allowed in?
How does that even make sense? Don't they understand that people can go places that they don't own?
The curious part is that many of these "militia men" came from other states to join this super fun party. Seems like they are violating their own rules...
-
So if they stop you you just have have to say you're here for the militia.
-
So if they stop you you just have have to say you're here for the militia.
Yeah, but then you have to wear the company-issued, ragged camo pants and chew tobacco. Oh, and drink Keystone Ice. That was the deal breaker for me.
-
In any other country this would be terrorism but here its patriotism to half the country.
Worse yet, no one can do a thing about it without committing political suicide.
I don't follow your reasoning. How is it political suicide to stop terrorists? Stopping a redneck brigade is not going to cause political suicide as even a lot of Republicans have backed away from supporting Bundy. This is just getting ridiculous.
-
In any other country this would be terrorism but here its patriotism to half the country.
Worse yet, no one can do a thing about it without committing political suicide.
I don't follow your reasoning. How is it political suicide to stop terrorists? Stopping a redneck brigade is not going to cause political suicide as even a lot of Republicans have backed away from supporting Bundy. This is just getting ridiculous.
Because they aren't seen as terrorists. They're seen as patriots to enough people to tip the media scales against whoever orders the takedown. (And Obama)
And the Republicans would be all over that even though they did back away.
If the republicans did it, other republicans would seize the opportunity to call them traitors to freedom.
-
I really doubt it. Regardless of sentiment, this is still not a libertarian or anarchist country.
You can think whatever you want but if half the country supported this then there would have already been a revolution.
-
Arresting Bundy wouldn't be political suicide. Gunning down his redneck army Waco-style, however, would be.
My guess is that the government is just going to wait until the excitement dies down, and deal with him then. In a few months or so, provided that Harry Reid shuts his fucking mouth and stops provoking more unrest, they'll be able to quietly arrest Bundy.
-
Arresting Bundy wouldn't be political suicide. Gunning down his redneck army Waco-style, however, would be.
My guess is that the government is just going to wait until the excitement dies down, and deal with him then. In a few months or so, provided that Harry Reid shuts his fucking mouth and stops provoking more unrest, they'll be able to quietly arrest Bundy.
I figure they're the same thing.
The man seems intent on defending himself and I believe he would go down shooting before allowing himself to be arrested.
-
If they try to arrest him and he starts shooting then it's definitely not political suicide to shoot back.
-
If they try to arrest him and he starts shooting then it's definitely not political suicide to shoot back.
"Cliven Bundy is dead. Shot while defending his home, Cliven Bundy and 4 other members of his militia group were killed by SWAT teams from the local county's office. Sources say that the SWAT team entered the house at 10:05am after repeated attempts to get Mr. Bundy to surrender failed.
'This is a tragety that should never have happened' said some republican senator 'This man was a patriot to America for standing up to the corruption in Government, such as what I fight every day. That kind of force for one man is unacceptable.'
A vigil is being held and an estimated 1,000 people are arriving. Police are keeping a large distance from the farm as many of these people appear to be armed."
-
Clearly, the solution is to bring tanks.
-
http://gawker.com/cliven-bundy-is-now-offering-awful-u-s-history-lessons-1573105042
-
http://gawker.com/cliven-bundy-is-now-offering-awful-u-s-history-lessons-1573105042
Will he apply for 501c(4) tax exempt status?
-
FYI
My wife knows more than cliven about US history.
Also: doesn't he contradict himself by calling supporters of small government "federalists"? Doesn't he know what that means?
-
FYI
My wife knows more than cliven about US history.
Also: doesn't he contradict himself by calling supporters of small government "federalists"? Doesn't he know what that means?
No, he could think that the Federal government is betraying the ideal, whatever that is to Bundy, of federalism.
-
If they try to arrest him and he starts shooting then it's definitely not political suicide to shoot back.
"Cliven Bundy is dead. Shot while defending his home, Cliven Bundy and 4 other members of his militia group were killed by SWAT teams from the local county's office. Sources say that the SWAT team entered the house at 10:05am after repeated attempts to get Mr. Bundy to surrender failed.
'This is a tragety that should never have happened' said some republican senator 'This man was a patriot to America for standing up to the corruption in Government, such as what I fight every day. That kind of force for one man is unacceptable.'
A vigil is being held and an estimated 1,000 people are arriving. Police are keeping a large distance from the farm as many of these people appear to be armed."
Only the really crazy right minority would say something like this. How would a SWAT team be too much force after everything this guy has said and done? He has a fucking militia. No one would think "man, the local beat cops should have tried to just walk up and handcuff him."
-
Only the really crazy right minority would say something like this. How would a SWAT team be too much force after everything this guy has said and done? He has a fucking militia. No one would think "man, the local beat cops should have tried to just walk up and handcuff him."
Your argument defeats itself. He has a ton of people willing to take arms against the government for him - logically there are many more people who support him but don't have a deathwish. Sure, it would be a minority, but more than enough to cause a media outrage.
-
Only the really crazy right minority would say something like this. How would a SWAT team be too much force after everything this guy has said and done? He has a fucking militia. No one would think "man, the local beat cops should have tried to just walk up and handcuff him."
Your argument defeats itself. He has a ton of people willing to take arms against the government for him - logically there are many more people who support him but don't have a deathwish. Sure, it would be a minority, but more than enough to cause a media outrage.
Not sure about "outrage" it would definitely be heavily covered. But you're right, I guess we should just let a militia hang out in Neveda because no one wants to be the person to restore order.
I have not seen any news outlet support him after the racist remarks. So you can assume there are a ton of Bundy supporters, but I just don't think that's true.
-
lets jus nukem
-
But you're right, I guess we should just let a militia hang out in Neveda because no one wants to be the person to restore order.
Reality sucks sometimes. Most politicians value their job more than their constituents.
-
But you're right, I guess we should just let a militia hang out in Neveda because no one wants to be the person to restore order.
Reality sucks sometimes. Most politicians value their job more than their constituents.
That is political suicide.
-
That is political suicide.
Sadly, no. It should be, I agree, but it isn't.
-
Doing nothing is political suicide.
-
Doing nothing is political suicide.
It's not, because no one's doing anything. Hypothetical politician John Q. Conformist takes the exact same reputation hit as everyone else, i.e. no relative reputation hit.
-
Doing nothing is political suicide.
It's not, because no one's doing anything. Hypothetical politician John Q. Conformist takes the exact same reputation hit as everyone else, i.e. no relative reputation hit.
I wouldn't vote for a government who allowed this to go on. No matter what side of the political spectrum they were on.
-
I wouldn't vote for a government who allowed this to go on. No matter what side of the political spectrum they were on.
Neither would I. Unfortunately, people like us are in the minority, and populism continues to be a popular and efficient approach.
-
Honestly, it just seems like no one is taking Bundy or his militia very seriously right now. Horsford is trying to disband it because the local economy is taking a hit, but the cogs are turning slowly. I wonder how it will play out. Maybe someone will eventually stop it, but it just takes awhile to get to that point.
But I'm really disappointed in the inaction and I would think the locals would be getting really fed up with it. The officials would not be in the wrong at all for stopping it - which is why I don't think it would be political suicide for anyone. The Libertarians would be upset, but they're always upset with government anyway.
-
Hopefully, he will soon become irrelevant enough for it not to be risky (from a PR standpoint) to deal with him.
rooster, I generally agree with you. The problem is that it might be political suicide if a big enough news station abuses their thesaurus hard enough. The very possibility is probably quite frightening to politicians.
-
I can't see any way for the government to quickly resolve this situation that doesn't involve them slaughtering the militia.
-
The very possibility is probably quite frightening to politicians.
That I can definitely understand. It's been a long time since anything like this happened.
I can't see any way for the government to quickly resolve this situation that doesn't involve them slaughtering the militia.
George Washington would have done it.
President Washington, confronted with what appeared to be an armed insurrection in western Pennsylvania, proceeded cautiously. Although determined to maintain government authority, he did not want to alienate public opinion. He asked his cabinet for written opinions about how to deal with the crisis. The cabinet recommended the use of force, except for Secretary of State Edmund Randolph, who urged reconciliation. Washington did both: he sent commissioners to meet with the rebels while raising a militia army. Washington privately doubted the commissioners could accomplish anything, and believed a military expedition would be needed to suppress further violence
...
The Washington administration's suppression of the Whiskey Rebellion met with widespread popular approval. The episode demonstrated the new national government had the willingness and ability to suppress violent resistance to its laws. It was therefore viewed by the Washington administration as a success, a view that has generally been endorsed by historians
-
The very possibility is probably quite frightening to politicians.
That I can definitely understand. It's been a long time since anything like this happened.
I can't see any way for the government to quickly resolve this situation that doesn't involve them slaughtering the militia.
George Washington would have done it.
President Washington, confronted with what appeared to be an armed insurrection in western Pennsylvania, proceeded cautiously. Although determined to maintain government authority, he did not want to alienate public opinion. He asked his cabinet for written opinions about how to deal with the crisis. The cabinet recommended the use of force, except for Secretary of State Edmund Randolph, who urged reconciliation. Washington did both: he sent commissioners to meet with the rebels while raising a militia army. Washington privately doubted the commissioners could accomplish anything, and believed a military expedition would be needed to suppress further violence
...
The Washington administration's suppression of the Whiskey Rebellion met with widespread popular approval. The episode demonstrated the new national government had the willingness and ability to suppress violent resistance to its laws. It was therefore viewed by the Washington administration as a success, a view that has generally been endorsed by historians
The irony would be lost by cliven Bundy.
-
The saga continues:
http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/las-vegas/bundy-sued-after-car-hits-cow-i-15
He said it is the state’s job to maintain the fence that keeps his livestock off the interstate.
“It’s a state problem. It’s not our problem,” Bundy said. “We really feel bad when it happens. We sure don’t want it to happen. But we’re not liable.”
lol
-
And continues to continue:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/01/cliven-bundys-son-arrested-following-courthouse-brawl-with-deputies/
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/02/cliven-bundys-son-sentenced-to-prison-for-violating-probation-i-made-a-big-mistake/
He has a very unfortunate face.
-
And continues to continue:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/01/cliven-bundys-son-arrested-following-courthouse-brawl-with-deputies/
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/02/cliven-bundys-son-sentenced-to-prison-for-violating-probation-i-made-a-big-mistake/
He has a very unfortunate face.
I remember being caught up in the drama last year. Traffic was backed up for hours because of this asshole.
-
Cliven Bundy has been out of major headlines for quite some time now. I wonder if all his protection has left already or if the media just doesn't care?
And what happened with the grazing fees?
-
Cliven Bundy has been out of major headlines for quite some time now.
Shed no more tears, he's back!
http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2016/01/drama_in_burns_ends_with_quiet.html
-
I saw.
I'm iffy on it.
On one hand, what they're doing is dangerous and stupid. On the other hand, the judge made the sentencing mistake. He shoukdn't have to pay for that.
-
I'm just enjoying people who don't understand what terrorism is decrying it a terrorist attack.
-
I'm just enjoying people who don't understand what terrorism is decrying it a terrorist attack.
Well, they are scared so its kinda unntentional terrorism?
-
Of course not. They aren't exercising violence - they are merely occupying a property. They didn't pick a target which would incite fear in the masses - on the contrary, they went for a secluded wildlife refuge. If they are terrorists, then so is Occupy Wall Street or Black Lives Matter's more peaceful protesters1. They are also not trying to achieve a political goal. They do not want a law introduced or repealed, they are standing their ground against a decision they perceive to be unjust.
Are they reasonable? No. Are they terrorists? Also no.
1 - I am, of course, ignoring the less peaceful "protests" in which they decided that burning down half of their own town is a good idea.
-
Point.
Now, do you thinj their reasons are justified?
-
They are also not trying to achieve a political goal. They do not want a law introduced or repealed, they are standing their ground against a decision they perceive to be unjust.
The article says that they want to get the Hammonds released and the federal government to turn over its land to local ranchers and loggers. I wouldn't call these guys terrorists either, but their goals are definitely political ones.
-
Of course not. They aren't exercising violence - they are merely occupying a property. They didn't pick a target which would incite fear in the masses - on the contrary, they went for a secluded wildlife refuge. If they are terrorists, then so is Occupy Wall Street or Black Lives Matter's more peaceful protesters1.
Check me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall Occupy Wall Street or Black Lives Matter (even the more violent examples) calling for armed supporters to come and help defend the federal buildings being occupied.
-
Now, do you think their reasons are justified?
Frankly, I don't have a good enough understanding of the situation to make a call just yet. Last time, everyone (myself included) thought the guy was nuts, and yet he got the government to back off (http://abcnews.go.com/US/nevada-cattle-rancher-wins-range-war-federal-government/story?id=23302610). Perhaps he's just unorthodox in his approach, rather than outright crazy. I wouldn't know yet.
The article says that they want to get the Hammonds released and the federal government to turn over its land to local ranchers and loggers. I wouldn't call these guys terrorists either, but their goals are definitely political ones.
You're mixing up administration and the executive branch with politics and legislation. Poor form, to say the least.
Check me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall Occupy Wall Street or Black Lives Matter (even the more violent examples) calling for armed supporters to come and help defend the federal buildings being occupied.
Of course you're wrong. Does that even surprise anyone at this point? The more violent BLM protests were completely filled with calls for armed supporters, and hordes of armed supporters joining in the looting and burning. I can only assume you got your news from CNN and didn't bother to watch any of the protesters' self-run livestreams at the time. Occupy Wall Street also called for supporters to help defend the occupied ground - obviously they happened not to carry guns because they were radical-left hippies. What difference does it make if someone is "armed" if no bullets are fired (n.b. contrary to your BLM buddies)?
-
Check me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall Occupy Wall Street or Black Lives Matter (even the more violent examples) calling for armed supporters to come and help defend the federal buildings being occupied.
Of course you're wrong. Does that even surprise anyone at this point? The more violent BLM protests were completely filled with calls for armed supporters, and hordes of armed supporters joining in the looting and burning.
What federal building(s) did BLM occupy?
-
What difference does it make if someone is "armed" if no bullets are fired
Because the armed character can make threats of violence that the unarmed one can't? If you occupy a building by sitting in it, that's very different from sitting in it whilst pointing a gun at the door.
-
You're mixing up administration and the executive branch with politics and legislation. Poor form, to say the least.
You're just drawing an arbitrary distinction between them. There's no rule saying that terrorists only care about legislation and not administrative actions. And plenty of terrorist attacks have included demands of releasing prisoners.
-
You're just drawing an arbitrary distinction between them.
TIL Saddam views the US Constitution as arbitrary. 10/10 would cop again
Because the armed character can make threats of violence that the unarmed one can't? If you occupy a building by sitting in it, that's very different from sitting in it whilst pointing a gun at the door.
Can you name one instance of a gun being pointed at anything in this case, or are you just talking about worthless hypotheticals?
What federal building(s) did BLM occupy?
An interesting question which reveals your (not-exactly-secret to begin with) nature. Let's put it in the bin and ask one that's actually sensible: what public property did BLM (and friends) occupy?
Mizzou.
-
You're just drawing an arbitrary distinction between them.
TIL Saddam views the US Constitution as arbitrary. 10/10 would cop again
You are ridiculous.
-
I wouldn't call these guys terrorists either, but their goals are definitely political ones.
You're mixing up administration and the executive branch with politics and legislation. Poor form, to say the least.
genuine question: what difference does it make whether their demands are directed at the executive or the legislature?
-
genuine question: what difference does it make whether their demands are directed at the executive or the legislature?
Well, if it's pursuant of an administrative goal, and not a political one, then it falls outside of the definition of "terrorism", which makes a significant difference when you try to determine whether or not something is terrorism.
You are ridiculous.
Pot, kettle, respectable African-American of Cherokee descent.
-
What federal building(s) did BLM occupy?
An interesting question which reveals your (not-exactly-secret to begin with) nature. Let's put it in the bin and ask one that's actually sensible: what public property did BLM (and friends) occupy?
No. Let's stick with the question that I asked, seeing as it's a federal building that's being occupied. Just because the land is open to the public doesn't necessarily mean that the headquarters building is.
-
No. Let's stick with the question that I asked, seeing as it's a federal building that's being occupied.
No, picking random and irrelevant metrics does not advance your or anyone else's cause. If you don't want to talk about things that are actually pertaining to the subject, consider posting elsewhere.
-
genuine question: what difference does it make whether their demands are directed at the executive or the legislature?
Well, if it's pursuant of an administrative goal, and not a political one, then it falls outside of the definition of "terrorism", which makes a significant difference when you try to determine whether or not something is terrorism.
I've never heard of anyone excluding the administrative functions of government from the general scope of politics. Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics) doesn't make that distinction, Merriam-Webster (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/politics) doesn't, Cambridge (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/politics) doesn't, etc. Your definition of terrorism is extremely narrow (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_terrorism) too.
-
Your definition of terrorism is extremely narrow (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_terrorism) too.
Yeah, I have no idea where I might have found it...
Egads! It's the same (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/terrorism) dictionaries (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/terrorism) you use! Who could have possibly predicted this?!
-
what difference does it make whether their demands are directed at the executive or the legislature?
if their demands pursue administrative goals and not political goals, then they aren't making political demands
i totally agree that they aren't terrorists. that said, this reply doesn't really answer the question. i was more trying to get at why the executive branch isn't political/politics/policy/whatever. that's not a distinction i've ever encountered, and i think the overwhelming majority of people would agree that demanding the privatization of federal property and the release of federal prisoners is a political demand.
i'm with saddam. i'm moderately engaged in politics, and i've never, ever heard anyone describe the executive branch as administrative to the exclusion of being political.
-
How is it political? It's not a change in government/law-making/the way a country is governed (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/politics). It's merely a change in how said governance is implemented and overseen.
-
i think i see see what you're getting at. you're saying (i think) that which particular bits of land are public/private is a different matter than the overall policy that says some land is private and some belongs to the fed. the ranchers aren't demanding a change in the overall policy, just disputing whether or not this bit or that bit falls into which category. likewise, you see the ranchers disputing not the legitimacy of the legal code overall or in part, but its application, fair or unfair, to this particular defendant.
i don't think that distinction is unreasonable on its face*, but in this context i think it's a distinction without a difference. i agree that those two things can be separated into different discussions, but both of them are discussions about politics. your own definition doesn't make a distinction between policy and implementation of policy. d1 is "the activities of the government, members of law-making organizations, or people who try to influence the way a country is governed." the activities of the executive branch and its members falls squarely in that category.
i also think that it's, on its face, a demand about the way the country governs that land. governance is precisely what's at stake.
*although it still doesn't have anything to do with which branch is being lobbied :P
-
You understood me correctly and I see the point behind your objection (although I'm not immediately convinced - I do think that the distinction is there and that it makes a difference). Agree to disagree.
-
Hi guys,
On one hand this is a forum where I expect to find some brilliant people and some quite ignorant people. To accept the possibility that earth is flat requires some ability to think critically, so I expect to find some brilliant minds here.
Naturally, since the internet is what it is, you would likely also have some really stupid and brainwashed idiots here, trying to defend a paradigm that has been spoon fed to them since birth. Plus of course the lowlife trolls crawling around the net like Gollums.
On the other hand, I don't see much reference to or insight in the constitution, the history and the present state of affairs in the US in this thread.
I wouldn't be surprised if Bundy is an agent provocateur, working for some federal institution, that's one thing.
Apart from that there are the real issues of having a legislative, judicial and executive federal power structure that at present day more than anything else operates like an organised crime racket raping the US and its people (and the rest of the world for that matter).
I watched a live feed from Burns, Oregon and judging from the information communicated, the federal government is fucking up the people in that community. Not only the Hammonds that this happens to centre around.
From what I understand there is no federal "land", the land of Oregon belongs to the State of Oregon, not the federal government. Just as for any other state.
So apart from Bundy being whatever he is, I think the real issues with a federal power gone awry in relation to the constitution also should be acknowledged as part of the equation.
-
How is it political? It's not a change in government/law-making/the way a country is governed (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/politics). It's merely a change in how said governance is implemented and overseen.
The implementation and oversight of governance are in and of themselves a part of governance. Societal institutions like government or law don't exist in the abstract. Part of what makes them real - as in, more than just an idea in some random person's head - is the fact that they are imposed on the population, that they are implemented, enforced, maintained, etc. All these things put together are what makes up the process of governance. Applying your pedantic "that's not governance, it's just providing a supporting function to governance" reasoning to its logical conclusion would end with us deciding that nobody at all does any governing. Legislators don't govern, they just write and vote on laws, they don't actually enforce them. Governors don't govern (go figure), they just enforce the laws, they don't make any decisions regarding them. No one person truly "governs," therefore no governing is done at all.
And while I probably made a mistake for linking to dictionaries instead of encyclopedias in the first place, confining terrorism to just lobbying for political change is still a very superficial definition. There are plenty of terrorists out there with motives that can't necessarily be summed up as demanding a government enact a specific change. What about ideological terrorism, like environmental activists who burn down factories, or religious terrorism, like radical Muslims who blow themselves up because "ALLAH ACKBAR INFIDELS MUST DIE!"?
-
The implementation and oversight of governance are in and of themselves a part of governance.
No, and you've already done a good job at explaining why not.
Societal institutions like government or law don't exist in the abstract. Part of what makes them real - as in, more than just an idea in some random person's head - is the fact that they are imposed on the population, that they are implemented, enforced, maintained, etc.
Precisely - and this oversight and enforcement is only possible thanks to them being separate. What you propose - an artificial merger of all aspects of a nation - would fundamentally dismantle everything Western liberal democracies rely on.
Applying your pedantic "that's not governance, it's just providing a supporting function to governance" reasoning
Look, I don't mind you being wrong about civics and society, but being wrong about what I did or didn't say is inexcusable. You can just scroll up and read my post.
And while I probably made a mistake for linking to dictionaries instead of encyclopedias in the first place
You made the mistake of referencing reliable sources without checking whether or not they support your thesis. Your Wikipedia article lists multiple legal definitions used within the US, and they conveniently happen to mirror those dictionary definitions. Of course, you only read the first sentence of that article, and assumed it would be good enough.
What about ideological terrorism, like environmental activists who burn down factories
Environmental terrorirsts want legal changes to restrict industrial actions.
or religious terrorism, like radical Muslims who blow themselves up because "ALLAH ACKBAR INFIDELS MUST DIE!"?
Mujihadeen want to establish Sharia law throughout the world (or the region thereof they decide to be active in).
-
Okay, if we've reached the "one-liners" stage of this discussion, then it's time to put it to rest. It'll just get nasty from here on out otherwise. Agree to disagree, like you said to garygreen. In other news, lol:
http://factually.gizmodo.com/no-ammon-bundy-didnt-compare-his-militia-to-rosa-parks-1751353105
From what I understand there is no federal "land", the land of Oregon belongs to the State of Oregon, not the federal government. Just as for any other state.
No, this isn't right. The federal government owns plenty of land, and it's perfectly constitutional:
The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.
Maybe an argument can be made that what the federal government is doing is unfair and in need of complete overhaul (interesting article on it (http://www.vox.com/2016/1/5/10718128/federal-land-west-oregon-militia)). But when genuine grievances start getting mixed in with unsupported conspiracy theories, the media has a tendency to ignore the former and focus on the latter, so it's hard to blame people for focusing on them too.
-
Saddam runs away from yet another debate.
-
Maybe an argument can be made that what the federal government is doing is unfair and in need of complete overhaul (interesting article on it (http://www.vox.com/2016/1/5/10718128/federal-land-west-oregon-militia)). But when genuine grievances start getting mixed in with unsupported conspiracy theories, the media has a tendency to ignore the former and focus on the latter, so it's hard to blame people for focusing on them too.
Agreed.
-
Any agreements or disagreement's aside, Kelly's take on the situation is absolutely glorious.
(http://i.onionstatic.com/onion/5240/1/original/960.jpg)
-
What's a Birder?
-
What's a Birder?
Bird watcher?
-
it's genuinely shocking how the onion has managed to keep being this funny after so many years. the cartoons are one of their best additions.
-
Oh hey, it's over.
They fought the law and the law won. (http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/01/26/464510016/bundy-other-militants-arrested-one-killed-near-oregon-refuge)
-
It's hardly over. Only some of them were arrested or killed.
-
Yeah, if they play it right, they've just created a group of martyrs.
-
It's hardly over. Only some of them were arrested or killed.
The big media name was arrested though. No one else has enough media pull to make headlines outside the local paper unless they do something drastic.
The movement will fizzle out when they run out of food, money, or conviction.
Yeah, if they play it right, they've just created a group of martyrs.
Is there enough media attention for that though?
-
Yeah, if they play it right, they've just created a group of martyrs.
Is there enough media attention for that though?
That depends on whether or not they play it right. Nobody knew who the Bundy family was before they started doing this kind of stuff, either.
-
Yeah, if they play it right, they've just created a group of martyrs.
Is there enough media attention for that though?
That depends on whether or not they play it right. Nobody knew who the Bundy family was before they started doing this kind of stuff, either.
True. But I don't think they have the skills to take advantage of it.
-
We shall see. They've been doing well for themselves so far, so I wouldn't call it over just yet.
-
Agents messed up by killing any of them. Someone should have reminded the LEOs, etc, that they're not supposed to shoot white suspects because they have white privilege.
-
Agents messed up by killing any of them. Someone should have reminded the LEOs, etc, that they're not supposed to shoot white suspects because they have white privilege.
What?
-
Agents messed up by killing any of them. Someone should have reminded the LEOs, etc, that they're not supposed to shoot white suspects because they have white privilege.
+1 10/10 would white power again.
-
Agents messed up by killing any of them. Someone should have reminded the LEOs, etc, that they're not supposed to shoot white suspects because they have white privilege.
What?
If you haven't heard of the term, I would google it. It's a U.S. thing.
-
I think he's using some witty satire to argue that white privilege doesn't exist. Because a white guy was shot by cops.
-
I mean, "white privilege" is pretty much made up, but I'm not sure what being shot by mysterious "LEO" agents has anything to do with that.
-
http://www.npr.org/2016/02/11/466451287/cliven-bundys-arrest-caps-years-of-calls-for-government-to-take-action
pwned
-
I bet no one tries to break him out or attack th government in response.
-
I mean, "white privilege" is pretty much made up, but I'm not sure what being shot by mysterious "LEO" agents has anything to do with that.
LEO simply means law enforcement officer.
-
LEO simply means law enforcement officer.
Thanks for the clarification, but my post remains pretty much unchanged. Where are those racist cops executing people based on "privilege"?
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/28/us/bundy-brothers-acquitted-in-takeover-of-oregon-wildlife-refuge.html
dafuq?
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/28/us/bundy-brothers-acquitted-in-takeover-of-oregon-wildlife-refuge.html
dafuq?
Sounds like a case of jury nullification, given that the defendants apparently did not deny that they occupied federal land.
-
I hope the same happens with Dakota Pipeline protesters.
-
I hope the same happens with Dakota Pipeline protesters.
Fat chance of that.