Politics 2016 (election edition)

[tinnitus photography]

man under tarp.

 

 

if this was September, a lot of halloween costumes would be all set.

 

[Atticus]

man under tarp.

 

 

if this was September, a lot of halloween costumes would be all set.

 

 

I really needed that laugh.  Sincerely appreciated.

[tinnitus photography]

[John Smith]

If you let it go it will happen again and again. Nope, can't do it. It only emboldens the militants/terrorists...I've heard that somewhere.

[Doug C]

If you let it go it will happen again and again. Nope, can't do it. It only emboldens the militants/terrorists...I've heard that somewhere.

I agree. If Cliven Bundy had been dealt with, this Oregon nonsense would not have happened. Cliven won. He was given back his cattle and still owes the US government $1 million. The precedent was set, so why not?

[KevinG]

If you let it go it will happen again and again. Nope, can't do it. It only emboldens the militants/terrorists...I've heard that somewhere.

 

I agree. If Cliven Bundy had been dealt with, this Oregon nonsense would not have happened. Cliven won. He was given back his cattle and still owes the US government $1 million. The precedent was set, so why not?

 

I am not saying they shouldn't be punished or it should be let go.  They broke the law, they should be arrested and tried in court and sentenced accordingly.  What I do not want to see happen is the police and get into a shootout with these people.  The situation has to be defused, without anyone getting injured or killed.  Cliven Bundy should have been jailed for his actions.  

 

It seems to me that there is a segment on the left that sees this as a way to get some sort of revenge.  It has been brought up here and elsewhere, "If they were black, etc." they would be dead, or the national guard would be brought in, etc.  This is a ridiculous argument.  So violence against these guys (who you don't agree with) makes it right to escalate the situation to where people are killed or injured?  Come on.  In every situation the use of force (deadly or otherwise) should be the last option.  Now with Travon Martin, Michael Brown, et al. that wasn't the case, those are horrible tragedies.  Why would we want the police to act rashly and potentially cause more deaths.  

 

Right now, there is no serious threat or harm to the police or public.  More than likely ending this situation by force would cause the injury and death of several people.  

 

So let's flip this and use the hypothetical that was brought up earlier.  A young group of Black Lives Matters (or a group that you feel passionate about) take over a post office.  They have guns, and demands and will not leave.  They have made threatening statements, but nothing overt.  Do you think the way to deal with the situation is to have the Police go in and end this immediately via force, or wait it out?  The only reason you wish to see ended quickly and by force is because you do not like or agree with their cause.  

 

So again, I ask you.  What is the purpose of ending this with an armed confrontation?  

[Doug C]

Kevin, what are you on about? Armed confrontation? Revenge? I feel passionate about Black Lives Matter? If there is a BLM that I am passionate about, it's the Bureau of Land Management or Bowel Loosen Movement, but not Black Lives Matter. You keep addressing statements that haven't been made. 

[lost highway]

I think the lack of clarity was introduced by my use of hypotheticals for arguement's sake and was exacerbated by the vagueness of a conversation about severity and tactics.

[KevinG]

Kevin, what are you on about? Armed confrontation? Revenge? I feel passionate about Black Lives Matter? If there is a BLM that I am passionate about, it's the Bureau of Land Management or Bowel Loosen Movement, but not Black Lives Matter. You keep addressing statements that haven't been made. 

 

My comments about revenge or the use of force in general was not directly pointed to you, I am sorry if you misconstrued my point.  Though you did use the term dealt with, which seemed sinister, especially in agreeing with John Smith.  My comments in regards to violence and revenge was more pointed to  John Smith, when he said things like this:

 

Anyhow he is not the first one of these assholes to suggest or out right say that they will not be taken alive. In my mind when they say shit like that while holding weapons they are in fact brandishing them and threatening federal and local law enforcement. These guys are not peaceful protestors they are armed militants looking for a confrontation. To hell with them, this needs to be supressed now.

 

And this:

 

The man under the tarp pretty much said he will die fighting rather than live in a concrete box. To my mind he is directly threatening law enforcement, much more so than a man holding a BB gun on his shoulder in a Walmart. I wonder where Lon Horuchi is these days?

 

BTW Lon Horiuchi is an FBI sniper who was at Ruby Ridge and Waco and charged with manslaughter.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lon_Horiuchi

 

In my mind these two statements clearly are advocating the use of force, if not deadly force, to end the standoff in Oregon.  

 

And so I wondered based upon lost highway's hypothetical, what should be done if the situation was reversed?  Would John Smith be calling for Lon Horiuchi?  Would he be calling for the standoff to be suppressed immediately? 

 

I don't agree with what is happening in Oregon.  But never would I think an appropriate to use deadly force unnecessarily.  At this point it is clearly unnecessary.    

[Doug C]

Thanks Kevin, I understand now. As far as "dealt with" sounding sinister, I did mean "dealt with", as in doing something about the situation in an official capacity, i.e. arrest if warranted, cattle not returned and $1 million in fines and fees paid. No more, no less. 

 

Any group, regardless of their motivation, doing what Captain Moroni and company are doing, must be arrested and dealt with according to the law. I do believe that at some point, enough is enough and the government must say you have to surrender peacefully. If they do not, then cordon the place so that nothing gets in or out and when they get hungry enough, they'll agree to arrest. There should also be massive video to make it clear who fired first, if it unfortunately comes to that.

[RaspberryJam]

This killed me:

 

http://nymag.com/following/2016/01/colin-meloy-inspires-erotic-militia-fanfiction.html#

[KevinG]

Thanks Kevin, I understand now. As far as "dealt with" sounding sinister, I did mean "dealt with", as in doing something about the situation in an official capacity, i.e. arrest if warranted, cattle not returned and $1 million in fines and fees paid. No more, no less.

 

Any group, regardless of their motivation, doing what Captain Moroni and company are doing, must be arrested and dealt with according to the law. I do believe that at some point, enough is enough and the government must say you have to surrender peacefully. If they do not, then cordon the place so that nothing gets in or out and when they get hungry enough, they'll agree to arrest. There should also be massive video to make it clear who fired first, if it unfortunately comes to that.

I believe we are on the same page. When this ends if they are not prosecuted to the fullest extent of the laws, it will be a travesty.

 

I read somewhere there was a meeting to end the standoff, but was rejected.

 

http://huff.to/1UAwACQ

 

But the good news is they are pretty much out of the news.

[John Smith]

I actually don't want anyone killed or even injured. What I want is this stupid shit, this ignorance, this f'd up movement suppressed in such a manner that a message is sent and common sense takes hold.

 

I know that violence just creates more violence. For years I've been against escalation of violence because ultimately that just creates more people who hate us and want to take up arms against us leading to more bombing etc..,

 

With these idiots we let them have their way two years ago. Why? Because they had the implied threat of violence so today none of them went to jail, Bundy still owes millions and now they strike again. The notion that the location they are holding being isolated and if we ignore them they will go away is just crazy. They will just be back again and again. Hence the rhetoric I use. In short I am 100% against doing nothing. Put them under siege,arrest them be prepared, but do not ignore them.

[John Smith]

Earlier in this thread or the previous one a distinction was made between carrying a weapon and brandishing. Brandishing was considered cause for being shot. My pointing out that these people are clearly brandishing, and outright threatening federal officials and nothing being done about is bull. But any sort of action plays into their hands. m

[KevinG]

I actually don't want anyone killed or even injured. 

 

Your rhetoric in previous and future posts say otherwise.  But I guess I'll take you on your word.  

 

Earlier in this thread or the previous one a distinction was made between carrying a weapon and brandishing. Brandishing was considered cause for being shot. My pointing out that these people are clearly brandishing, and outright threatening federal officials and nothing being done about is bull. But any sort of action plays into their hands. m

 

 

The notion that the location they are holding being isolated and if we ignore them they will go away is just crazy. They will just be back again and again. Hence the rhetoric I use. In short I am 100% against doing nothing. Put them under siege,arrest them be prepared, but do not ignore them.

 

Why do you think nothing is being done about this?  Are you a member of the Sheriff's department and have knowledge of the inner workings of the negotiations?  Also what makes you believe they are threatening anyone?  

 

Isn't a measured approach and the desire for safety for all the best outcome?  At this point in time there is no threat to the police or the public at large.  

 

Why put this group under siege, back them into a corner and have their only option to use violence and escalate to the point where people are killed?  It is wholly unnecessary.     

 

This article from Slate really sums up my opinion on the matter:

 

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/01/the_oregon_standoff_with_ammon_bundy_isn_t_evidence_of_a_racial_double_standard.html

 

I happen to like this quote quite a bit: 

 

 

In any case, why won’t they shoot at armed white fanatics isn’t just the wrong question; it’s a bad one. Not only does it hold lethal violence as a fair response to the Bundy militia, but it opens a path to legitimizing the same violence against more marginalized groups. As long as the government is an equal opportunity killer,goes the argument, violence is acceptable.

 

 Listen, I understand your frustration.  This group is clearly in the wrong.  At the point this siege ends the group needs to be held responsible for their actions.  They need to face prison time.  Cliven Bundy should also be held accountable for his actions as well. 

 

I don't think anyone is advocating ignoring them.  I say wait them out.  Remove their platform for spreading their message.  MSNBC stops showing the idiot under the blue tarp, if Facebook stops allowing to use their site to ask for their support, etc.  This will end.  They will be arrested.  But back them into a corner, people will die.  I don't want to see another Ruby Ridge, I don't want to see another Waco.  I don't want to see one person killed or injured because of these idiots.    

[Winston Legthigh]

This act should completely fulfill this guy's turn to the dark side, no? Jesus Christ, so to speak.

[John Smith]

Hmm forgive me for inferring that the tone of several posters has been to ignore them and they will go away. It is how I have read this. That's where I get the notion that nothing should be done. I know law enforcement is monitoring them, but not so closely that people are not slipping in and out fairly freely. The press should be kept outside a fairly wide perimeter, guys on horseback shouldn't be allowed to saunter into camp etc... So much for any sort of, well anything. In the long run I would wager that these guys go home, no or minor charges and they will be back in another year or two to do this again somewhere else.

[John Smith]

Well, the sherif asked them to leave and they said no. I guess law enforcement is out of ideas.

 

And Now that ahole in Alabama is defying the courts and pretty much saying that federal law does not trump state law. So we have one more defiant jerk. What makes us a nation is our laws and sticking to them. These people who say no not this law or not that law are tearing apart the very fabric of our country.

[Doug C]

Well, the sherif asked them to leave and they said no. I guess law enforcement is out of ideas.

 

And Now that ahole in Alabama is defying the courts and pretty much saying that federal law does not trump state law. So we have one more defiant jerk. What makes us a nation is our laws and sticking to them. These people who say no not this law or not that law are tearing apart the very fabric of our country.

Re the sheriff asking them to leave: so much for their expressed belief in Posse Comitatus. It truly has gone on far too long. They are basically being indulged like petulant children. I can understand the concerns about bloodshed, but it is baffling to me that they have been allowed flip off federal authority and the rule of law for almost a week. Sadly, I think that your prediction that they'll all be allowed to leave with no consequence will come to fruition.

 

I'm certain that Roy Moore has been at least partially emboldened by Oregon. I agree that all of these fools need to be arrested/sanctioned NOW!

[Hixter]

And Now that ahole in Alabama is defying the courts and pretty much saying that federal law does not trump state law. So we have one more defiant jerk. What makes us a nation is our laws and sticking to them. 

Should federal law always trump state law? I'm not so sure about that, or we'd have the DEA raiding cannabis dispensaries in Denver, etc.

[John Smith]

Should it or shouldn't it is a separate discussion, the fact is that federal law does trump state law. That is a well settled issue. Article VI, para 2.

 

It's my opinion that in the modern era with our population being fairly mobile that maybe the time for states and separate laws for them might be at an end. Sure maintain their integrity and allow this state or that state to manage their resources, levy taxes etc... But perhaps it's time for criminal laws and other laws governing society to be made uniform across the country. Just a thought.

[KevinG]

Re the sheriff asking them to leave: so much for their expressed belief in Posse Comitatus. It truly has gone on far too long. They are basically being indulged like petulant children. I can understand the concerns about bloodshed, but it is baffling to me that they have been allowed flip off federal authority and the rule of law for almost a week. Sadly, I think that your prediction that they'll all be allowed to leave with no consequence will come to fruition.

 

I'm certain that Roy Moore has been at least partially emboldened by Oregon. I agree that all of these fools need to be arrested/sanctioned NOW!

 

So let me get this straight?  You believe that a judge in Alabama banned gay marriage in his state, because no one has stopped the Oregon rancher standoff?  Wow.   Well in that case send in Seal Team 6 and shoot these mother f'ers square in the head.  Consequences be damned!  

[Doug C]

I believe that Moore would have likely done it anyway, it is a logical extension of his prior actions. I also believe that the Oregon states rights fiasco played a role in the timing of his decision. You need to relax and have a drink. Seal team 6? Shoot in the head? Calm down, Kevin.

[uncool2pillow]

Should federal law always trump state law? I'm not so sure about that, or we'd have the DEA raiding cannabis dispensaries in Denver, etc.

 

Constitutionally, absolutely. The Feds would be completely in the right to enforce pot laws. Chris Christie moved down my short list when he threatened to do just that, though. Sometimes it's best to use discretion. I haven't paid enough attention to this story to know what the best course of action is though.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bob_Roberts]

Should it or shouldn't it is a separate discussion, the fact is that federal law does trump state law. That is a well settled issue. Article VI, para 2.

 

It's my opinion that in the modern era with our population being fairly mobile that maybe the time for states and separate laws for them might be at an end. Sure maintain their integrity and allow this state or that state to manage their resources, levy taxes etc... But perhaps it's time for criminal laws and other laws governing society to be made uniform across the country. Just a thought.

 

Centralization of power is a scary thing - whether the power be corporate or governmental.  With criminal law, there is the Model Penal Code...

 

People who are very pro-Fed when it comes to the civil rights movement, are suddenly very state's rights when it comes to the issue of cannibis.  Those are actually my positions, and I can see the inconsistency as plain as day.