Cliven Bundy Part Two

Main Course

Moderator: Moderator

User avatar
2wilzgood
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 14545
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 11:51 pm

Re: Cliven Bundy Part Two

Post by 2wilzgood » Mon Jan 04, 2016 5:19 am

judik wrote:There is quite a bit of injustice meted out by the Feds, state and local governments
But I guess unless you are a white vigilante it doesn't matter much


Ya reckon?

Until now. The poor Hammonds. No one else ever suffered so.

You were saying?
I used to feel empathy for the poor. Now I just want them all to die. - ScottBaio
You will die like a dog for no good reason. - Hemingway
My efforts here are wasted - wilz

User avatar
equus
Modern Leftits
Posts: 18557
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 10:16 pm

Re: Cliven Bundy Part Two

Post by equus » Mon Jan 04, 2016 6:49 am

If 100 armed muslims had taken over a chicken coop and were threatening to make omelettes, the righties here would be baying for blood.

Good analysis and suggestions here (from someone with a bit of background in counterterrorism).

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/01/03/opini ... index.html
If I can shoot rabbits, then I can shoot fascists.

goo.gl/5i3gvB

User avatar
eric84
Moderator
Posts: 53585
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 8:31 pm

Re: Cliven Bundy Part Two

Post by eric84 » Mon Jan 04, 2016 4:19 pm

It concludes much like what I suggested: don't create another ruby ridge or Waco, unless you want to radicalize even more nutters. Wait them out.
Love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair.

vanceen
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 2306
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2006 6:31 pm

Re: Cliven Bundy Part Two

Post by vanceen » Mon Jan 04, 2016 5:19 pm

equus wrote:If 100 armed muslims had taken over a chicken coop and were threatening to make omelettes, the righties here would be baying for blood.

Good analysis and suggestions here (from someone with a bit of background in counterterrorism).

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/01/03/opini ... index.html


As tempting as it sometimes is, I avoid using the argument: "if X (instead of Y), we would see A (instead of B)", which has been used three times on this thread.

For one thing, it's counterfactual by definition. It's based on a hypothetical inconsistent response to a hypothetical situation, which means that it is not a very strong debating point.

For another thing, even if for the sake of argument we assume the "if x (instead of y)..." argument is completely true, you are still left with an ad hominem attack rather than a substantive argument about the point. I.e., you may have showed that the person arguing a point is inconsistent, but that does not prove that he or she is wrong about the point in question.

flojin
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 7399
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2005 5:38 am

Re: Cliven Bundy Part Two

Post by flojin » Mon Jan 04, 2016 5:36 pm

How about this:

When there were black people protesting in Ferguson, the Army National Guard was deployed.

Now that there are white men with firearms who have seized a government building, there seems to be very little police presence, let alone Army.
Lost Soul wrote:I have it on good authority that William Brennan, Maobama's CIA head, will be referred by the IG for criminal indictment.

Cisco
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 2062
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2006 2:23 pm

Re: Cliven Bundy Part Two

Post by Cisco » Mon Jan 04, 2016 5:42 pm

flojin wrote:How about this:

When there were black people protesting in Ferguson, the Army National Guard was deployed.

Now that there are white men with firearms who have seized a government building, there seems to be very little police presence, let alone Army.


Skin color has nothing to do with this. I'm pretty sure that the National Guard was deployed because of the widespread arson, looting and rioting...not just a protest.

Also, this Bundy thing just started over the weekend (I think). Give it time and I'm sure they'll be plenty of law enforcement of every stripe on the scene...maybe even the National Guard.

User avatar
Right_Turn
Evil Overlord
Posts: 6757
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 4:58 pm

Re: Cliven Bundy Part Two

Post by Right_Turn » Mon Jan 04, 2016 5:51 pm

Entertaining to see our resident board lefties suddenly get bloodthirsty for a violent law enforcement crackdown when it comes to this sort of thing. I'm sure it has NOTHING to do with the subjects being white and rightist.

I've noticed a disturbing lack of discussing root causes, opening a national dialogue about their grievances, and calls for Americans to take some time for self-reflection to see if our policies have led to this inevitable "expression of rage."

What? No has asked what the unemployment rate is among white men in the area? No talk about how society has "abandoned" them and they have little choice but to take the route they have?

Nope. It's drones, army, and guns a-ablazing time.

You people are fucking frauds.

User avatar
eric84
Moderator
Posts: 53585
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 8:31 pm

Re: Cliven Bundy Part Two

Post by eric84 » Mon Jan 04, 2016 5:55 pm

I was waiting for you. You've disappointed, frankly.
Love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair.

User avatar
2wilzgood
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 14545
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 11:51 pm

Re: Cliven Bundy Part Two

Post by 2wilzgood » Mon Jan 04, 2016 5:57 pm

To be fair, I did suggest turning off the water and waiting, and if that didn't work, THEN the white phosphorous. I'm balanced that way.
I used to feel empathy for the poor. Now I just want them all to die. - ScottBaio
You will die like a dog for no good reason. - Hemingway
My efforts here are wasted - wilz

User avatar
Citizen Baba
Mayor McCheese
Posts: 23284
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 5:44 am

Re: Cliven Bundy Part Two

Post by Citizen Baba » Mon Jan 04, 2016 6:00 pm

Right_Turn wrote:Entertaining to see our resident board lefties suddenly get bloodthirsty for a violent law enforcement crackdown when it comes to this sort of thing. I'm sure it has NOTHING to do with the subjects being white and rightist.

I've noticed a disturbing lack of discussing root causes, opening a national dialogue about their grievances, and calls for Americans to take some time for self-reflection to see if our policies have led to this inevitable "expression of rage."

What? No has asked what the unemployment rate is among white men in the area? No talk about how society has "abandoned" them and they have little choice but to take the route they have?

Nope. It's drones, army, and guns a-ablazing time.

You people are fucking frauds.


My comment above was -- I thought obviously -- in jest. I actually agree with e-ric here. The Feds should monitor them, but not feed their attention-seeking behavior, and essentially do nothing unless they have to. Arrest them at a more propitious time.

Likewise, the cops not taking aggressive stance during the Baltimore riots was widely criticized. I think the decision saved lives. Arrests were made later.

User avatar
Right_Turn
Evil Overlord
Posts: 6757
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 4:58 pm

Re: Cliven Bundy Part Two

Post by Right_Turn » Mon Jan 04, 2016 6:03 pm

eric84 wrote:I was waiting for you. You've disappointed, frankly.


In terms of the group in the OP, I believe in the rule of law. I don't believe 'protesting' includes the right to break the law - for anyone. They have no legitimate right to do what they're doing. Exactly how the feds should physically remove them, I don't know. I'm more concerned about how many law enforcement officials would be harmed in a direct confrontation, than any of the group members. The 'militia' has cast their lot and what happens to them, happens to them and it will be no one's fault but their own.

A line in the sand has to be drawn at some point or they (and others like them) will only be encouraged to do it again and again in the future.

flojin
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 7399
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2005 5:38 am

Re: Cliven Bundy Part Two

Post by flojin » Mon Jan 04, 2016 6:14 pm

Here's what I really think:

I watched a documentary about ISIS, and al Baghdadi was actually radicalized in a US run prison. Many of the early ISIS people were.

I think we need to take things very, very slowly. Cordon off the area. Turn off the heat, water, and electricity. Offer safe passage to anyone who surrenders. Give it a few months.

Eventually everyone will surrender or become too weak to resist. Then we take them and force them to do some kind of community service, like feed old people in nursing homes, or help build houses for poor people. We need to force them to repay the community by doing works for needy people.

That way, if they resist, they're simply holding out on helping people who need help. If they don't resist, they're actually helping people. Make it unglamorous, boring work. These morons want to be heroes. They want to die in a blaze of glory, or be sent to prison where they can become even more radical and hardened.

We need to starve them out, and then make them pick up garbage and help people for a few years. Hopefully that will take some of the romance and glory out of this movement.

Violence and imprisonment will only increase their appeal to others who are vulnerable to their message.
Lost Soul wrote:I have it on good authority that William Brennan, Maobama's CIA head, will be referred by the IG for criminal indictment.

User avatar
eric84
Moderator
Posts: 53585
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 8:31 pm

Re: Cliven Bundy Part Two

Post by eric84 » Mon Jan 04, 2016 6:28 pm

Right_Turn wrote:
eric84 wrote:I was waiting for you. You've disappointed, frankly.


In terms of the group in the OP, I believe in the rule of law. I don't believe 'protesting' includes the right to break the law - for anyone. They have no legitimate right to do what they're doing. Exactly how the feds should physically remove them, I don't know. I'm more concerned about how many law enforcement officials would be harmed in a direct confrontation, than any of the group members. The 'militia' has cast their lot and what happens to them, happens to them and it will be no one's fault but their own.

A line in the sand has to be drawn at some point or they (and others like them) will only be encouraged to do it again and again in the future.


Using violence to get them out will only reinforce to them that the US government is tyrannical. A long, boring siege ensures no one remembers what happened or cares particularly. We know of Ruby Ridge and Waco for obvious reasons.
Love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair.

User avatar
birdlite
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 10589
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 1:00 am

Re: Cliven Bundy Part Two

Post by birdlite » Mon Jan 04, 2016 6:34 pm

2wilzgood wrote:
judik wrote:There is quite a bit of injustice meted out by the Feds, state and local governments
But I guess unless you are a white vigilante it doesn't matter much


Ya reckon?

Until now. The poor Hammonds. No one else ever suffered so.

You were saying?


The Hammonds asked that the Bundy Militia NOT do all this. They did not want the protest or the takeover.

I agree with those who said turn off the media coverage

And if the media had turned off earlier at Fergusonm, things would not have been as bad as evidenced by an increase of portesting only when media showed up.

Right Turn - we have altready examined the Bundy family. They are welfare queens demanding entitlements from the government.

User avatar
equus
Modern Leftits
Posts: 18557
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 10:16 pm

Re: Cliven Bundy Part Two

Post by equus » Mon Jan 04, 2016 6:34 pm

Right_Turn wrote:Entertaining to see our resident board lefties suddenly get bloodthirsty for a violent law enforcement

Hang on, I'm a lefty (a modern leftits and feltist!) and I posted a link calling for softly softly!!!
If I can shoot rabbits, then I can shoot fascists.

goo.gl/5i3gvB

User avatar
Lavite
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 13212
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 7:49 pm

Re: Cliven Bundy Part Two

Post by Lavite » Mon Jan 04, 2016 6:42 pm

The Hammond's got screwed by the federal justice system. They plead guilty as part of a plea deal and did their prison time. For a federal judge to come back much later and say that the sentence wasn't harsh enough is just wrong.

Only a small fraction of fringe out-of-state protestors are involved in this sit in at the wildlife refuge. But as others have mentioned where is the cry for justice from elected officials at all levels for what was done to the Hammonds?
There is no education in the second kick of the mule.

User avatar
equus
Modern Leftits
Posts: 18557
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 10:16 pm

Re: Cliven Bundy Part Two

Post by equus » Mon Jan 04, 2016 6:44 pm

I thought the Hammonds were opposed to Y'allQaeda and the Yeehawd?
If I can shoot rabbits, then I can shoot fascists.

goo.gl/5i3gvB

User avatar
Citizen Baba
Mayor McCheese
Posts: 23284
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 5:44 am

Re: Cliven Bundy Part Two

Post by Citizen Baba » Mon Jan 04, 2016 6:44 pm

Lavite wrote:The Hammond's got screwed by the federal justice system. They plead guilty as part of a plea deal and did their prison time. For a federal judge to come back much later and say that the sentence wasn't harsh enough is just wrong.


There's this thing called an appeal.

Only a small fraction of fringe out-of-state protestors are involved in this sit in at the wildlife refuge. But as others have mentioned where is the cry for justice from elected officials at all levels for what was done to the Hammonds?


I still don't get how they were screwed. Do you think we should reward bad behavior?

User avatar
Lavite
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 13212
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 7:49 pm

Re: Cliven Bundy Part Two

Post by Lavite » Mon Jan 04, 2016 6:49 pm

Citizen Baba wrote:
Lavite wrote:The Hammond's got screwed by the federal justice system. They plead guilty as part of a plea deal and did their prison time. For a federal judge to come back much later and say that the sentence wasn't harsh enough is just wrong.


There's this thing called an appeal.

Only a small fraction of fringe out-of-state protestors are involved in this sit in at the wildlife refuge. But as others have mentioned where is the cry for justice from elected officials at all levels for what was done to the Hammonds?


I still don't get how they were screwed. Do you think we should reward bad behavior?


Part of the plea bargain is they would not appeal. So yes, they got screwed royally. And they did the prison sentence that the first judge gave them. So how do you make the leap that I want to reward bad behavior?
There is no education in the second kick of the mule.

polardude1
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 59518
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 1:30 pm

Re: Cliven Bundy Part Two

Post by polardude1 » Mon Jan 04, 2016 6:49 pm

I don't see a guilty plea after a 2 week trial. I see leniency given by the judge


http://burnstimesherald.info/2012/11/07 ... rson-case/

Judge grants leniency to both men

By Jennifer Jenks
Burns Times-Herald

Diamond ranchers Dwight Lincoln Hammond Jr., 70, and Steven Dwight Hammond, 43, were sentenced in U.S. District Court, District of Oregon, Oct. 30, with U.S. District Judge Michael R. Hogan presiding.

The pair were convicted of committing arson on federal lands in Pendleton in June.

The verdict came after a two-week trial and involved allegations that the Hammonds, owners of Hammond Ranches Inc., set a series of fires on lands managed by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), on which the Hammonds had grazing permits leased to them for their cattle operation.

Both defendants faced a five-year mandatory minimum prison sentence, a maximum fine of $250,000 and restitution, but were granted leniency by the judge.

Dwight Hammond was found guilty of using fire to damage and destroy property of the United States. He was sentenced to three-months imprisonment and three-years post-prison supervision and ordered to report for the service of his sentence on Jan. 4, 2013. He was ordered to pay a $100 special assessment to the court. He was found not guilty of four other counts against him.

Steven Hammond was found guilty of two counts of using fire to damage and destroy property of the United States. He was sentenced to a total of 12 months and one day of prison time and three-years post-prison supervision, with an order to report for his sentence on the same date as his father. He was ordered to pay a $200 special assessment to the court. He was found not guilty of three other counts against him.

The case was investigated by the BLM and prosecuted by assistant U.S. attorneys Frank Papagni and AnneMarie Sgarlata
DCComic "3000 dead Americans is slightly less than fuck all",

User avatar
Citizen Baba
Mayor McCheese
Posts: 23284
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 5:44 am

Re: Cliven Bundy Part Two

Post by Citizen Baba » Mon Jan 04, 2016 6:54 pm

Lavite wrote: sentence that the first judge gave them. So how do you make the leap that I want to reward bad behavior?


The federal guidelines weren't part of the plea.

Re-examining the Hammonds' sentence would reward bad behavior on the Bundy-istas part.

User avatar
Citizen Baba
Mayor McCheese
Posts: 23284
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 5:44 am

Re: Cliven Bundy Part Two

Post by Citizen Baba » Mon Jan 04, 2016 6:55 pm

Good catch, polar.

User avatar
equus
Modern Leftits
Posts: 18557
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 10:16 pm

Re: Cliven Bundy Part Two

Post by equus » Mon Jan 04, 2016 6:59 pm

Can you have a plea bargain and a guilty finding by jury in the same charge and trial? No mention of a plea bargain here.


A jury sitting in Pendleton, Oregon found the Hammonds guilty of the arsons after a two-week trial in June 2012. The trial involved allegations that the Hammonds, owners of Hammond Ranches, Inc., ignited a series of fires on lands managed by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), on which the Hammonds had grazing rights leased to them for their cattle operation.

The jury convicted both of the Hammonds of using fire to destroy federal property for a 2001 arson known as the Hardie-Hammond Fire, located in the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area. Witnesses at trial, including a relative of the Hammonds, testified the arson occurred shortly after Steven Hammond and his hunting party illegally slaughtered several deer on BLM property. Jurors were told that Steven Hammond handed out “Strike Anywhere” matches with instructions that they be lit and dropped on the ground because they were going to “light up the whole country on fire.” One witness testified that he barely escaped the eight to ten foot high flames caused by the arson. The fire consumed 139 acres of public land and destroyed all evidence of the game violations. After committing the arson, Steven Hammond called the BLM office in Burns, Oregon and claimed the fire was started on Hammond property to burn off invasive species and had inadvertently burned onto public lands. Dwight and Steven Hammond told one of their relatives to keep his mouth shut and that nobody needed to know about the fire.


http://www.justice.gov/usao-or/pr/easte ... ars-prison

Arson is pretty serious, I would have thought. People die quite regularly in wildfires and that could have happened in this case.
If I can shoot rabbits, then I can shoot fascists.

goo.gl/5i3gvB

User avatar
Lavite
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 13212
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 7:49 pm

Re: Cliven Bundy Part Two

Post by Lavite » Mon Jan 04, 2016 7:21 pm

equus wrote: Arson is pretty serious, I would have thought. People die quite regularly in wildfires and that could have happened in this case.


Absolutely, but it wasn't a terrorist act which is what the mandatory sentence was all about.

The only hunting evidence that would have been destroyed are possibly entrails if they cleaned the deer on the spot. Animals would have cleaned that up in no time and even if they did not, it would be near impossible to link it to specific poachers.
There is no education in the second kick of the mule.

User avatar
equus
Modern Leftits
Posts: 18557
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 10:16 pm

Re: Cliven Bundy Part Two

Post by equus » Mon Jan 04, 2016 7:24 pm

Lavite wrote:
equus wrote: Arson is pretty serious, I would have thought. People die quite regularly in wildfires and that could have happened in this case.


Absolutely, but it wasn't a terrorist act which is what the mandatory sentence was all about.

Hmm, not according to the US Attorney's office.

from the link above...

“We all know the devastating effects that are caused by wildfires. Fires intentionally and illegally set on public lands, even those in a remote area, threaten property and residents and endanger firefighters called to battle the blaze” stated Acting U.S. Attorney Billy Williams.

“Congress sought to ensure that anyone who maliciously damages United States’ property by fire will serve at least 5 years in prison. These sentences are intended to be long enough to deter those like the Hammonds who disregard the law and place fire fighters and others in jeopardy.”
If I can shoot rabbits, then I can shoot fascists.

goo.gl/5i3gvB

User avatar
eric84
Moderator
Posts: 53585
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 8:31 pm

Re: Cliven Bundy Part Two

Post by eric84 » Mon Jan 04, 2016 7:25 pm

We should have them on a prison chain gang, right, Lavite?
Love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair.

User avatar
Lavite
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 13212
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 7:49 pm

Re: Cliven Bundy Part Two

Post by Lavite » Mon Jan 04, 2016 7:57 pm

eric84 wrote:We should have them on a prison chain gang, right, Lavite?


I don't think federal prisons ever had many chain gangs if any. Regardless, they plead guilty and served their punishment. Three years after the trial is not the time to re-incarcerate them for the same crime.
There is no education in the second kick of the mule.

polardude1
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 59518
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 1:30 pm

Re: Cliven Bundy Part Two

Post by polardude1 » Mon Jan 04, 2016 8:01 pm

What ever happened to your lie about the plea bargain
DCComic "3000 dead Americans is slightly less than fuck all",

User avatar
equus
Modern Leftits
Posts: 18557
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 10:16 pm

Re: Cliven Bundy Part Two

Post by equus » Mon Jan 04, 2016 8:02 pm

Does that mean the state should not be able to appeal against any lenient sentences?
If I can shoot rabbits, then I can shoot fascists.

goo.gl/5i3gvB

User avatar
Citizen Baba
Mayor McCheese
Posts: 23284
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 5:44 am

Re: Cliven Bundy Part Two

Post by Citizen Baba » Mon Jan 04, 2016 8:06 pm

Lavite wrote:
eric84 wrote:We should have them on a prison chain gang, right, Lavite?


I don't think federal prisons ever had many chain gangs if any. Regardless, they plead guilty and served their punishment. Three years after the trial is not the time to re-incarcerate them for the same crime.


If they pled guilty, was there a jury?

User avatar
equus
Modern Leftits
Posts: 18557
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 10:16 pm

Re: Cliven Bundy Part Two

Post by equus » Mon Jan 04, 2016 8:09 pm

Found the appeal decision. Lavite is kind of right, there was an oral agreement while the jury was deliberating. Not quite what people think of as a plea bargain but pretty much the same outcome.

http://www.landrights.org/or/Hammond/Hammonds%20Appeal%209th%20district%20court.pdf

While the jury deliberated on the remaining charges, the
parties reached an oral agreement and presented it to the
court.1
The government told the court that the Hammonds had
agreed to “waive their appeal rights” — except with respect
to ineffective assistance of counsel claims — “and accept the
verdicts as they’ve been returned thus far by the jury.” In
return, the government promised to “recommend” that
Steven’s sentences run concurrently and agreed that the
Hammonds “should remain released pending the court’s
sentencing decision.”
The Hammonds agreed with the government’s summary
of the plea agreement.
If I can shoot rabbits, then I can shoot fascists.

goo.gl/5i3gvB

User avatar
eric84
Moderator
Posts: 53585
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 8:31 pm

Re: Cliven Bundy Part Two

Post by eric84 » Mon Jan 04, 2016 8:11 pm

I'm pleased to see a former law and order, long incarceration advocate now defending prisoners' rights.
Love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair.

User avatar
Citizen Baba
Mayor McCheese
Posts: 23284
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 5:44 am

Re: Cliven Bundy Part Two

Post by Citizen Baba » Mon Jan 04, 2016 8:11 pm

Lavite wrote:
eric84 wrote:We should have them on a prison chain gang, right, Lavite?


I don't think federal prisons ever had many chain gangs if any.


I don't realize you were previously advocating for chain gangs only where there had been chain gags before. Thanks for clarifying.

Total Reject
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 2612
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2014 3:17 pm

Re: Cliven Bundy Part Two

Post by Total Reject » Mon Jan 04, 2016 8:20 pm

The paranoia that some of these Bundy types have is understandable.

These ranchers live in the middle of nowhere, most of them just want to be left alone. Controls on grazing and water use start creeping in. In Harney county, they've been dealing with tighter range management guidelines on federal lands to prevent ESA listing of sage grouse. Interestingly enough, this means controlling invasive western juniper on BLM land which includes fire as a management tool.

Ranchers are cautious about government restrictions that suddenly restrict their ability to make a living. You can't really blame them. Spotted owls restrict logging, suckers and salmon restrict water use, and what do they get for compliance? They lose income because they don't all have the means to change their practices. ESA compliance does put a burden on rural areas. Some ranchers see it as an attack, and they fight back.

Chip_Oatley
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 28176
Joined: Sat May 17, 2008 5:39 pm

Re: Cliven Bundy Part Two

Post by Chip_Oatley » Mon Jan 04, 2016 9:22 pm

They didn't prepare well. Have just tweeted a call for snacks.

User avatar
cowtown
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 25302
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 6:53 pm

Re: Cliven Bundy Part Two

Post by cowtown » Mon Jan 04, 2016 10:07 pm

Right_Turn wrote:Entertaining to see our resident board lefties suddenly get bloodthirsty for a violent law enforcement crackdown when it comes to this sort of thing. I'm sure it has NOTHING to do with the subjects being white and rightist.

I've noticed a disturbing lack of discussing root causes, opening a national dialogue about their grievances, and calls for Americans to take some time for self-reflection to see if our policies have led to this inevitable "expression of rage."

What? No has asked what the unemployment rate is among white men in the area? No talk about how society has "abandoned" them and they have little choice but to take the route they have?

Nope. It's drones, army, and guns a-ablazing time.

You people are fucking frauds.


Frauds? So, you want to come in guns a blazing then?

I’d prefer to wait them out and arrest them as terrorists
Jim-2012 wrote:I *heart* Hitler



Image

User avatar
equus
Modern Leftits
Posts: 18557
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 10:16 pm

Re: Cliven Bundy Part Two

Post by equus » Mon Jan 04, 2016 10:44 pm

If I can shoot rabbits, then I can shoot fascists.

goo.gl/5i3gvB

User avatar
Citizen Baba
Mayor McCheese
Posts: 23284
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 5:44 am

Re: Cliven Bundy Part Two

Post by Citizen Baba » Mon Jan 04, 2016 10:57 pm

Let's face it, the 19th century not the 20th was the biggest era of government handouts. This is its legacy.

User avatar
VinnyD
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 61465
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 3:35 pm

Re: Cliven Bundy Part Two

Post by VinnyD » Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:59 pm

TR, have they been paying fair market value for grazing rights etc?

User avatar
rider5
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 18128
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 4:45 pm

Re: Cliven Bundy Part Two

Post by rider5 » Tue Jan 05, 2016 12:39 am

VinnyD wrote:TR, have they been paying fair market value for grazing rights etc?


A while back (10 years?) an environmental group decided to put in for a grazing lease in a sensitive area and all hell broke loose. Ranchers across the West went ape nuts. It was pretty funny. Of course the stalwart, self-reliant paragons of the West won on that one.

There will be no bidding wars for grazing leases.

demsrdumb
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 3991
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 1:16 am

Re: Cliven Bundy Part Two

Post by demsrdumb » Tue Jan 05, 2016 1:51 am

It would be amazing to see the federal government go after sanctuary cities with this same fervor.
“A tax payer voting for Obama is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders.”

Annie Oakley = "I got nothing."

To a liberal diversity is people of different races, genders and sexual preferences, who all think the same......

vanceen
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 2306
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2006 6:31 pm

Re: Cliven Bundy Part Two

Post by vanceen » Tue Jan 05, 2016 4:04 am

flojin wrote:How about this:

When there were black people protesting in Ferguson, the Army National Guard was deployed.

Now that there are white men with firearms who have seized a government building, there seems to be very little police presence, let alone Army.


That's significant progress.

Comparing real responses to real situations is much more substantial than comparing hypothetical responses and situations.

Next, it could be debated whether the two situations are actually so similar that race is the only reasonable explanation for any difference in responses. That could be a sensible discussion that might lead somewhere.

User avatar
equus
Modern Leftits
Posts: 18557
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 10:16 pm

Re: Cliven Bundy Part Two

Post by equus » Tue Jan 05, 2016 7:07 am

demsrdumb wrote:It would be amazing to see the federal government go after sanctuary cities with this same fervor.

How much fervour is that, Dumbs?
If I can shoot rabbits, then I can shoot fascists.

goo.gl/5i3gvB

demsrdumb
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 3991
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 1:16 am

Re: Cliven Bundy Part Two

Post by demsrdumb » Tue Jan 05, 2016 11:31 am

equus wrote:
demsrdumb wrote:It would be amazing to see the federal government go after sanctuary cities with this same fervor.

How much fervour is that, Dumbs?


How about just some good old fashioned equal distribution of the law.

It makes the government nothing more then a thug organization when they fail to uphold the law on one segment or group of people while DEMANDING, the law be upheld to the strictest interpretations of the law for another. That means every law is upheld with the same Fervor for all peoples living under it. Not at the whim of the Executive and his cronies.
“A tax payer voting for Obama is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders.”

Annie Oakley = "I got nothing."

To a liberal diversity is people of different races, genders and sexual preferences, who all think the same......

polardude1
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 59518
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 1:30 pm

Re: Cliven Bundy Part Two

Post by polardude1 » Tue Jan 05, 2016 11:44 am

Take some medication for your paranoia.
DCComic "3000 dead Americans is slightly less than fuck all",

demsrdumb
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 3991
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 1:16 am

Re: Cliven Bundy Part Two

Post by demsrdumb » Tue Jan 05, 2016 12:45 pm

polardude1 wrote:Take some medication for your paranoia.


Paranoia?

Pointing out the lack of enforcement of one segment of federal law and highlighting it against this persecution perpetrated by Obama and his cronies.

I call it persecution because these men already served a term of punishment, that it did not serve the required federal minimum, big whoop, not every law is held to any maximum or minimum or even upheld at all, by Obama, so how can he demand this one be, while ignoring sanctuary cities?

To me that is lawlessness.
“A tax payer voting for Obama is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders.”

Annie Oakley = "I got nothing."

To a liberal diversity is people of different races, genders and sexual preferences, who all think the same......

flojin
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 7399
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2005 5:38 am

Re: Cliven Bundy Part Two

Post by flojin » Tue Jan 05, 2016 1:46 pm

demsrdumb wrote:To me that is lawlessness.


It's called "checks and balances" and it's the reason we have three branches of government. The founders designed our government to function this way and deliberately gave the executive the power to enforce, or not enforce, the laws. He can also veto, but can not write a law, and the supreme court can strike them down. That's how it's supposed to work.
Lost Soul wrote:I have it on good authority that William Brennan, Maobama's CIA head, will be referred by the IG for criminal indictment.

Total Reject
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 2612
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2014 3:17 pm

Re: Cliven Bundy Part Two

Post by Total Reject » Tue Jan 05, 2016 1:53 pm

VinnyD wrote:TR, have they been paying fair market value for grazing rights etc?

Sometimes I have to remind myself that people are often more interested in winning debates than finding solutions to problems. Finding solutions to problems is not about politics or ego, it is about addressing the good and bad in a fair and equitable manner. If that question is meant to address some of the non-partisan assessments I mentioned regarding the ESA, which I support, then it's not clear. Please enlighten me.

And demsrdumb is right. Imagine this exact same scenario taking place in Washington DC, or any major city. I could drive over to Malheur today and go birdwatching but I hear the office is... occupied. The schools were closed in Burns last I heard. Maybe it's because all the high paying jobs there support so many stay at home moms, it's perfectly fine with them. Why would those uneducated rednecks feel the need to have guns, their government will take care of them. Or, maybe not.

polardude1
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 59518
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 1:30 pm

Re: Cliven Bundy Part Two

Post by polardude1 » Tue Jan 05, 2016 2:02 pm

I call it persecution because these men already served a term of punishment, that it did not serve the required federal minimum, big whoop, not every law is held to any maximum or minimum or even upheld at all, by Obama, so how can he demand this one be, while ignoring sanctuary cities?


Yeah, big whoop.
DCComic "3000 dead Americans is slightly less than fuck all",

User avatar
Lavite
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 13212
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 7:49 pm

Re: Cliven Bundy Part Two

Post by Lavite » Tue Jan 05, 2016 2:16 pm

flojin wrote: It's called "checks and balances" and it's the reason we have three branches of government. The founders designed our government to function this way and deliberately gave the executive the power to enforce, or not enforce, the laws. He can also veto, but can not write a law, and the supreme court can strike them down. That's how it's supposed to work.


The executive branch is tasked with enforcing the laws established by the legislative branch. To deliberately fail to do so violates the President's oath of office. That is how it is suppose to work.

What Flojin is describing violates the constitutional "checks and balances".
There is no education in the second kick of the mule.

Post Reply