IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Cliven Bundy , Freeman on the Land , militia incidents , Oregon incidents

Closed Thread
Old 3rd January 2016, 11:35 AM   #81
Fast Eddie B
Philosopher
 
Fast Eddie B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Lenoir City, TN/Mineral Bluff, GA
Posts: 7,092
Originally Posted by Senex View Post
It is clear to me these people are engaging in criminal behavior.
I think that's undeniable.

My guess is they would say that so were the participants in the Boston Tea Party.

They might even quote Barry Goldwater:

"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

Not siding with them in any way - just trying to shine a light onto their possible thought processes.
Fast Eddie B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2016, 11:38 AM   #82
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 21,373
Originally Posted by Gawdzilla Sama View Post
If you're playing for something then you won.
We are having a substantive discussion. There are no winners or losers.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2016, 11:38 AM   #83
Beerina
Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions
 
Beerina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 30,851
Originally Posted by Gawdzilla Sama View Post
ter·ror·ism

noun
the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

Semantic quibble in 5, 4, 3,...

Deliberately shooting people or not is not a semantic quibble.
__________________
"Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson

The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales now! More, cheaper, better games, right? Right?
Beerina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2016, 11:41 AM   #84
Gawdzilla Sama
121.92-meter mutant fire-breathing lizard-thingy
 
Gawdzilla Sama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Northern St. Louis County, Missouri.
Posts: 42,180
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
We are having a substantive discussion. There are no winners or losers.
The Winner!!!
__________________
Guns that are instantly available for use are instantly available for misuse.
World War II Diplomatic and Political Resources
Hyperwar, WWII Military History
Buying conspiracy books is a voluntary tax on stupid.
Gawdzilla Sama is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2016, 11:42 AM   #85
Gawdzilla Sama
121.92-meter mutant fire-breathing lizard-thingy
 
Gawdzilla Sama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Northern St. Louis County, Missouri.
Posts: 42,180
Originally Posted by Beerina View Post
Deliberately shooting people or not is not a semantic quibble.
I only speak English, sorry.
__________________
Guns that are instantly available for use are instantly available for misuse.
World War II Diplomatic and Political Resources
Hyperwar, WWII Military History
Buying conspiracy books is a voluntary tax on stupid.
Gawdzilla Sama is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2016, 12:00 PM   #86
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 8,537
"What's going to happen hopefully (is) ... we don't go out there with a big force, because that's what they're looking for," he said. "The last thing we need is some type of confrontation."

He said that over the years, law enforcement has learned how to handle a situation like this; one that hasn't erupted in violence and in which a law may be broken, but there's no immediate threat to anyone's life.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/03/us/ore...efuge-protest/

No violence, no immediate threat to anyone? Sorry, this is not terrorism. It may turn into a terrorist act, but as of now, these ranchers -ahem!- terrorists could walk away and probably only be charged with trespassing.
Fudbucker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2016, 12:04 PM   #87
Roadtoad
Bufo Caminus Inedibilis
 
Roadtoad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Citrus Heights, CA
Posts: 15,468
Just a few thoughts here...

Sorry, but as defined by the Feds themselves, (as previously posted), once they took over a Federal Building, it became terrorism. You don't have to like the fact that it's defined as such, but it is. This, unfortunately, opens the door to a lot of things I do not want to see happen.

As to Waco, that's been one of the flash points in all of these incidents, along with Ruby Ridge. Randy Weaver has spoken out against anyone using what happened to him and his family as grounds for action, yet the Right Wing Militias have been clinging to that since the FBI began circling the Weaver Family home in Idaho. There's a lot of bitterness about what happened to both groups, so the big mistake here might be to go in and "go all Waco on them." If anything, it would likely backfire, and create even more of these situations.

I think this needs to be met head on. I think these people need to be removed from the facilities, and it needs to happen sooner rather than later. It needs to take place without the discharge of weapons, up until the militias start shooting. Once someone other than law enforcement starts shooting, there's not a lot that can be done.

I would want to see the media on site, verifying that restraint is being shown. And once everyone is removed from the building, I would want the media remaining on this story to ensure that the rights of these people are being maintained.

In doing so, you demonstrate that these "well regulated militias" aren't, and you also strengthen the case that the Feds are not being unjust in this instance. Sorry, I've yet to see how the sentence is unjust. If this was a proscribed burn, one authorized by all authorities, I would think the local fire officials would be on hand to prevent anything getting out of control. I've been through Burns a lot, (don't ask), and while it's a very small town with an even smaller fire department, I'm pretty sure if asked, most of the folks there would have been willing to help prevent a wildfire.

The folks in Burns are asking the Militias to leave. They aren't wanted. I have yet to see any hard and fast information on this, but how many people in Burns are asking that the sentence handed down be reviewed and overturned? My suspicion is there are folks in town that are satisfied with it. It may not be all, but I suspect it's enough. Dwight and Steve are not arguing; they're reporting in tomorrow. We may consider this unjust, but until there's more information, and, dare I say it, Evidence, we're shooting blanks in the dark.

As to Indigenous Americans, there's more than enough evidence they've endured horrible abuse at the hands of the Bureau of Land Management and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. If you have any question regarding that, check out what they did in Arizona to the Navajo, Apache, and Hopi. If that doesn't raise the hackles on the back of your neck, check your pulse. You may not have one. (I thought it was an outright victory when the Navajo nation bought up Speedy's Truck Stop and began making it someplace worth stopping. If I'm reading correctly, the BIA would beg to differ.) There's no question the Federal Government has engaged in extreme overreach. (On this, I would be in near complete agreement with Shanek.) But this is NOT how you handle it.

Believe it or not, in my not particularly humble opinion, the first salvo in changing things is Bernie Sanders running for President. He's one of the few people running who isn't in the back pocket of megabusiness, and he's running primarily as a populist. These folks running around baring pistols and rifles, crying out about their Second Amendment rights, are actually playing into the hands of the brutes who want to deny people their actual rights. They're missing the point. And while I don't think Sanders is going to be the one to declare his support for the NRA, I think he's savvy enough to handle things in such a manner that he'll pull the fangs before this kind of abuse that we're seeing in Burns on the Militia's part getting out of hand.

There's a way to do this, to change things for the better. My first litmus test? Any candidate supported by the Kochs, by ALEC, or any other such entity is automatically disqualified.

But this "demonstration" in Burns not the way to go. It just underscores what a lot of people have been complaining about as regards the Right. This is not going to help anyone.
Roadtoad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2016, 12:08 PM   #88
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 27,160
Originally Posted by Fast Eddie B View Post
I think that's undeniable.

My guess is they would say that so were the participants in the Boston Tea Party.

They might even quote Barry Goldwater:

"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

Not siding with them in any way - just trying to shine a light onto their possible thought processes.
I'm sure that's correct. I'm sure that these people see themselves as defenders of liberty. That's why I am using the word "lunatic" to describe them. They aren't defending liberty, but they think they are. They can't separate reality from their fantasies. They see themselves as the new Minutemen, or something, and they don't realize that the situations just don't match up very well (or that the original Minutemen had some pretty bad apples among them as well.)

Their speech is barely coherent. Their ideas consist of spouting slogans. However, they have guns, and will use them in "self defense".

The image that popped into my mind when reading about this occupation was the movie "Taps". For those who've never seen it, a group of young boys (high school and maybe slightly younger) who attend a military academy learn that it will be closed, and, objecting to this, they take over the grounds of the school and turn it into an armed camp.

The movie explores these young idealists who are inspired by the high sounding slogans of military service, but who are too young to understand when to apply them. They get caught up in this crusade, and end up in a situation they can't control. The audience feels sympathy for them because they were simply children acting out what they thought they understood, and standing up for what they thought they believed in. In reality, though, they were dangerous and had to be stopped.

The only difference here is that there is no sympathy, because these yahoos in Oregon are old enough to know better. They aren't children. They are just acting like children.
__________________
Proud of every silver medal I've ever received.
Meadmaker is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2016, 12:10 PM   #89
Fast Eddie B
Philosopher
 
Fast Eddie B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Lenoir City, TN/Mineral Bluff, GA
Posts: 7,092
I would rather see a perimeter held, as long as necessary.

Maybe turn off power and utilities to the build on in question.

Within a week or two some very hungry and beleaguered "patriots" will likely reconsider whether they chose the right time or place to take a stand.

All this assumes no hostages nor innocents in the building that are being threatened. I don't believe that's the case.
Fast Eddie B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2016, 12:11 PM   #90
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Checkmite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 27,241
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
It may turn into a terrorist act, but as of now, these ranchers -ahem!- terrorists could walk away and probably only be charged with trespassing.


What "ranchers"?



There are exactly two ranchers that have anything to do with the present situation; they have both denounced the occupation and stated their intention to report to jail tomorrow.
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002
Checkmite is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2016, 12:13 PM   #91
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 8,537
"Domestic terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:

Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping; and
Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.


I'm not seeing how (i) and (iii) apply here. You can't kidnap a building, there's been no mas destruction or assassination. And how is the civilian population being "coerced" or "intimidated"? Was someone using that building, and got kicked out? Was someone planning on using it today? Are these guys taking potshots at people?

We'll be inching closer to a possible terrorist situation, when Monday rolls around, but non-violent terrorism is an oxymoron, and that's what people are claiming is going on here.
Fudbucker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2016, 12:15 PM   #92
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 8,537
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
What "ranchers"?



There are exactly two ranchers that have anything to do with the present situation; they have both denounced the occupation and stated their intention to report to jail tomorrow.
Then this is looking even less like terrorism. These guys don't even sound like competent protesters.
Fudbucker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2016, 12:16 PM   #93
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 8,537
Originally Posted by Fast Eddie B View Post
I would rather see a perimeter held, as long as necessary.

Maybe turn off power and utilities to the build on in question.

Within a week or two some very hungry and beleaguered "patriots" will likely reconsider whether they chose the right time or place to take a stand.

All this assumes no hostages nor innocents in the building that are being threatened. I don't believe that's the case.
You think they have hostages???
Fudbucker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2016, 12:17 PM   #94
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
"Domestic terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:

Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping; and
Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.


I'm not seeing how (i) and (iii) apply here. You can't kidnap a building, there's been no mas destruction or assassination. And how is the civilian population being "coerced" or "intimidated"? Was someone using that building, and got kicked out? Was someone planning on using it today? Are these guys taking potshots at people?
You don't need all three of those to meet the requirements. There might be some confusion between the sub-clauses and the sub-sub-clauses when reading that.
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2016, 12:19 PM   #95
ShadowSot
Graduate Poster
 
ShadowSot's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Pensacola
Posts: 1,216
The grievances: http://theconservativetreehouse.com/...n/#more-110497
__________________
I love this crazy tragic, sometimes almost magic, awful beautiful life.
- Darryl Worley
The Stupid! It burns!
ShadowSot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2016, 12:29 PM   #96
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 8,537
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
You don't need all three of those to meet the requirements. There might be some confusion between the sub-clauses and the sub-sub-clauses when reading that.
"In phone interviews from inside the occupied building Saturday night, Ammon Bundy and his brother, Ryan Bundy, said they are not looking to hurt anyone. But they would not rule out violence if police tried to remove them, they said."

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/...n/#more-110497

When's the last time terrorists started their reign of terror by taking over a vacant building and pledging not to hurt anyone except LE (and then only if they're removed)? If all terrorists acted like this (instead of actually instilling terror in the populace by shooting people/blowing people up), we could all sleep easier at night.
Fudbucker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2016, 12:43 PM   #97
DavidJames
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Front Range, CO
Posts: 10,493
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Do they have a definition for an irregular force engaged in armed conflict against the government? As a law enforcement entity, they wouldn't need to make a distinction.
Utter nonsense. This is no different than if they were ISIS! Other than they wouldn't have they apologist they have here.
__________________
For 15 years I never put anyone on ignore. I felt it important to see everyone's view point. Finally I realized the value of some views can be measured in negative terms and were personally destructive.
DavidJames is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2016, 12:46 PM   #98
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility (USA, sort of)
Posts: 26,613
Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
So they are protesting the government infringing on people's right to...poach deer on public land then light 130 acres ablaze?

I don't think that's actually a right anyone has. I'd like to test that again though. How valuable is that public building anyway?

Neither did the courts.

Twice.

The two guys who did it don't seem all that riled up about it either. They've disowned the wackos.
__________________
"A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep."

"Ninety percent of the politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation."
quadraginta is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2016, 12:47 PM   #99
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 50,044
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2016, 12:50 PM   #100
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility (USA, sort of)
Posts: 26,613
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
This is more of a collective rights issue. It's like native American land disputes. Western states are equal semi sovereigns to the eastern states but the federal government claims ownership of most of the land. It is unjust occupation.

Wasn't it all Federal land before there was a state there?
__________________
"A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep."

"Ninety percent of the politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation."
quadraginta is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2016, 12:51 PM   #101
shemp
a flimsy character...perfidious and despised
 
shemp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: People's Democratic Republic of Planet X
Posts: 44,596
Just cut off the water and electricity. They'll come out when they get hungry, thirsty or cold enough.
__________________
Every time you feed a troll, God kills a kitten. Please stop killing kittens.

I used to think that Republicans were just jerks. Now I'm convinced that they're all sick, evil, twisted pieces of [first of George Carlin's seven dirty words].

"Biden's a Commie, like the Rockefellers!" -- some idiot overheard
shemp is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2016, 12:51 PM   #102
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility (USA, sort of)
Posts: 26,613
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Yes. They don't think they have a right to burn 130 acres. The problem is their options are deprived of them because the feds own 53% of Oregon. It is an unfair treatment like abuse of indigenous peoples reservations.

Which treaties are being violated in this case?
__________________
"A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep."

"Ninety percent of the politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation."
quadraginta is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2016, 12:54 PM   #103
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility (USA, sort of)
Posts: 26,613
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
There is the reason i equated it to federal abuse of indigenous peoples. The feds commit a number of abuses against them that they ostensibly have the right to do. Governments generally have their powers limited by required equitible treatment of all parties. Mass ownership of western states is inheritly inequitable treatment of semi sovereign states.

Why? Did the states use their own armies to take and secure the land?

Sounds like somebody expects the benefits without doing anything to earn them.
__________________
"A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep."

"Ninety percent of the politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation."
quadraginta is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2016, 12:55 PM   #104
ehcks
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,302
Originally Posted by shemp View Post
Just cut off the water and electricity. They'll come out when they get hungry, thirsty or cold enough.
It's out in the middle of nowhere. A single building surrounded by miles of scrub. It's probably on a well, and with generators with local fuel tanks.

But that also makes it easy to siege. Flat treeless land all around, so you can see anyone trying to get there way ahead of time.
__________________
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor
ehcks is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2016, 01:00 PM   #105
Minoosh
Penultimate Amazing
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 12,466
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
"In phone interviews from inside the occupied building Saturday night, Ammon Bundy and his brother, Ryan Bundy, said they are not looking to hurt anyone. But they would not rule out violence if police tried to remove them, they said."
So they don't rule out violence if police attempt to serve valid arrest warrants? This doesn't cut it. As someone else said the willingness to be arrested is part of nonviolent activism. These guys won't shoot cops as long as no one tries to arrest them? They have already crossed the line.
Minoosh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2016, 01:01 PM   #106
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 21,373
Originally Posted by DavidJames View Post
Utter nonsense. This is no different than if they were ISIS! Other than they wouldn't have they apologist they have here.
When ISIS is launching armed operations in Syria and Iraq, they are not engaged in terrorism either.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2016, 01:08 PM   #107
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 21,373
Originally Posted by quadraginta View Post
Why? Did the states use their own armies to take and secure the land?

Sounds like somebody expects the benefits without doing anything to earn them.
Would it be fair to say the treatment by the federal government of the states is not equitable, but irrelevant? Or are you saying the treatment is equitable?
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2016, 01:13 PM   #108
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 51,745
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
All occupying protesters say the same thing. Treehuggers promise to never leave either.

This is Rancher Lives Matter and it's not much different than Black Lives Matter.
Well they can point weapons at federal law enforcement with out any legal consequence, that is rather a big difference. I know federal law enforcement is a much lower form of being that noble local cops.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2016, 01:15 PM   #109
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 51,745
Originally Posted by Beerina View Post
Well, the federal government demanded vast swaths of western states as a condition of statehood, and some question the constitutionality of that.
We should have kept them territories, then no one would question the federal government owning its land.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2016, 01:17 PM   #110
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 51,745
Originally Posted by crescent View Post
This is true. The retention of lands under federal management in perpetuity has been challaneged in federal court several times. The Supreme Court has upheld the legality of federal lands retention twice, a more recent case was upheld by the 9th Circuit Court the Supremes declined to hear the appeal.

However, the Bundy clan and associated idiots don't believe in judicial review, which means that they believe that the Supremes cannot rule state laws to be in violation of the Constitution or of the Supremacy Clause. Every thing since Marbury v Madison is wrong. That means Bundys and their allies can just ignore judicial rulings. If the Bundys and allies disagree with the law, it is because they think they can declare a law to be unconstitutional and that their personal declaration of unconstitutional-ness is more valid than something issued by the Supreme Court.

I am disgusted by this. It has been nearly two years since the Bunkerville standoff. We have heard promises an investigation was underway and that prosecution would be forthcoming. It seems the Justice Dept. was too slow, and now there is another crisis. This was very, very predictable.
I am sure the feds will run away with their tail between their legs again.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2016, 01:18 PM   #111
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 51,745
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Governments, just ones anyway, do not get the ability to function as private property owners. The choice was form western states and give up the land and form new sovereigns, or don't form them. The choice they made violates the principles of federalism.
Just go annex Fort Knox as it is not legal for the feds to own land.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2016, 01:19 PM   #112
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 51,745
Originally Posted by crescent View Post
Again, this already ruled upon by the Supreme Court. Federal lands retention is constitutional. They determined that the feds have "Considerable discretion" in the management of those lands. Pass some federal laws to transfer the lands to state management, or pass a constitutional amendment.

Guns don't equal votes. Whatever those idiots in Oregon are doing, it is wrong.
Annexing property by force is a right of every american.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2016, 01:20 PM   #113
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 51,745
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
I read that they are saying "If you shoot at us, we will shoot back". They are saying that guns are for self defense in the event that authorities start shooting.
And yet if I annex your house and say that suddenly I am being a violent thief.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2016, 01:22 PM   #114
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 8,537
Originally Posted by Minoosh View Post
So they don't rule out violence if police attempt to serve valid arrest warrants? This doesn't cut it. As someone else said the willingness to be arrested is part of nonviolent activism. These guys won't shoot cops as long as no one tries to arrest them? They have already crossed the line.
They crossed "the line" when they took over a federal building. That doesn't mean it's terrorism. This can't even rightly be called a "stand-off" yet, because nobody has tried to evict them.

This has the potential to turn ugly, but potential terrorism isn't actual terrorism any more than potential persons are actual persons. Acorns and oak trees, and all that.
Fudbucker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2016, 01:24 PM   #115
Elind
Philosopher
 
Elind's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: S.E. USA. Sometimes bible country
Posts: 7,787
All this stuff about the government owning land. Doesn't that mean that all citizens own the land in equal parts?

The Bundys and their kind just seem to say they want it for themselves personally. If that isn't a welfare attitude I don't know what is.
Elind is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2016, 01:28 PM   #116
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 21,373
Interestingly, Jon ritzheimer, the ex marine there, is a pretty aggressive athiest. I wonder how well he is doing with people there that say God sent them.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2016, 01:29 PM   #117
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 21,373
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
Just go annex Fort Knox as it is not legal for the feds to own land.
I have not said illegal. It is about injustice. People protest unjust but Constitutional issues all the time.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2016, 01:32 PM   #118
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 51,745
Originally Posted by Roadtoad View Post
Just a few thoughts here...

Sorry, but as defined by the Feds themselves, (as previously posted), once they took over a Federal Building, it became terrorism. You don't have to like the fact that it's defined as such, but it is. This, unfortunately, opens the door to a lot of things I do not want to see happen.

As to Waco, that's been one of the flash points in all of these incidents, along with Ruby Ridge. Randy Weaver has spoken out against anyone using what happened to him and his family as grounds for action, yet the Right Wing Militias have been clinging to that since the FBI began circling the Weaver Family home in Idaho. There's a lot of bitterness about what happened to both groups, so the big mistake here might be to go in and "go all Waco on them." If anything, it would likely backfire, and create even more of these situations.
As we learned from the last Bundy standoff the thing to do is back down run away and give up on enforcing the law.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2016, 01:37 PM   #119
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility (USA, sort of)
Posts: 26,613
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
What you described isn't terrorism. There isn't a terror aspect. They would be irregulars.

If the circumstances were exactly the same, with the exception that it was a group of Islamic fundies, how many people do you suppose would be dodging the "terrorist" label?
__________________
"A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep."

"Ninety percent of the politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation."
quadraginta is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2016, 01:37 PM   #120
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 51,745
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
"In phone interviews from inside the occupied building Saturday night, Ammon Bundy and his brother, Ryan Bundy, said they are not looking to hurt anyone. But they would not rule out violence if police tried to remove them, they said."

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/...n/#more-110497

When's the last time terrorists started their reign of terror by taking over a vacant building and pledging not to hurt anyone except LE (and then only if they're removed)? If all terrorists acted like this (instead of actually instilling terror in the populace by shooting people/blowing people up), we could all sleep easier at night.
We didn't seem to have any issues classifying those who were only attacking an occupying force in Iraq as terrorists.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:19 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.