Oregon "standoff"

[broncofan]

What a long-winded, vacuous pile of nonsense. But thanks for playing. You agree with their beefs? Which were what? That the law should not apply to them and that they should be able to commit waste and arson on federal land.

You also foresee armed conflict between civilian groups and the federal government because of encroachment on individual liberties? Whose civil liberties were encroached upon? Sounds like you want to take up arms against your government as well. That last paragraph of yours is a fantastic portrait of a right-wing nut who knows he's on the wrong side of history. You understand you cannot win at the ballot box so you seek to obstruct the government and are willing to advocate violence to get your way. Only you're too chickenshit to do it yourself so you sit on the sideline and cheerlead morons like the Bundys. Only where are they now?

[trish]

I do have to chuckle though at the desire from many on the left to kill the lot of them with a drone, gas or pointless head on attacks... ignoring the support of Occupy Wall Street by the left not that long ago... but then who said 'progressives' were consistent?

You didn't read that opinion in thread. In fact, it's the first time I heard it from anyone. What echo chamber did you learn that from?

Given what you downthumbed (and the history of your posts) one would assume you're not as concerned with the four boxes of liberty as you are with allowing suicidal, unstable men and women (who are prone to take the law into their own hands and forego the advised "order") to carry firearms.

Sorry, but for the most part when I learn that a business asks that I not carry on their property, I respect that desire... by adding them to my unapproved-vendors list and simply not patronizing them anymore.

(boldfacing mine) The only example you give is when you didn't. Yes you no longer patronize them, but you did not respect (and do not respect - in both senses of the word) their desire.

[broncofan]

After I posted this morning I was thinking about the exact section of Bob's post that Trish highlighted. The difference between Bob and me (and Trish and others) is that he agrees with the most outrageous Republican policies. If there are people on the left who actually believe those at Malheur should have been treated like the most dangerous terrorists, I seriously question their judgment.

Do I think the protesters should be treated like Al Qaeda members or other militant Islamic terrorists? Hell no. If it had been Al Qaeda they would have tried to kill anyone whose path they crossed and the chance of there being an explosive or incendiary device at the refuge would be very high. Treat them like people who have committed felonies and who you are trying to bring in without harming. That's why I linked the Atlantic article.

The feds played the long game and were successful. If you know who is breaking the law, you do not have to be in a rush to arrest them. Do so when you can without subjecting officers to unnecessary risk and build a solid case against them.

[broncofan]

What is interesting about Bob's four boxes of liberty is that they imply that if you lose out in the democratic process you should resort to violence. Soap box, ballot box, jury, and ammo. That means if you get on your soap box and people think you're wrong you then hope to elect leaders who agree with you. If that does not work you look to the courts and if that is unsuccessful you take up arms. There are certain policies I do not agree with and that cannot be redressed by the courts. I'm certainly not taking up arms against my government.

These sound like the words of a man who does not respect the democratic process.

[trish]

Only if it goes his way.

[dreamon]

These sound like the words of a man who does not respect the democratic process.

The idea originates with Frederick Douglas. He didn't include the soap box, just ballot, jury and ammo.

[broncofan]

The idea originates with Frederick Douglas. He didn't include the soap box, just ballot, jury and ammo.

Did you consider that Frederick Douglass faced an actual deprivation of liberty? I did not know that the statement originated with him or in what context he said it. But as a former slave and abolitionist, he is someone who actually had very good reason to distrust his government. For most of his life he was not allowed to participate in the democratic process.

Don't you feel at all ashamed for invoking the words of a man who suffered one of the worst deprivations of liberty conceivable and using it to justify arson and other crimes?

[trish]

1863: Frederick Douglas, in a time of declared Civil War, called men of color to join and fight for the Union. "Men of color: To arms! To arms!" It was indeed a to arms. He did not then, as you do now, condone armed sedition against The United States of America and its elected government.

[trish]

Cliven Bundy was denied bail today. Hooray!

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/0...Bundy-in-court

Some excepts

Bundy is lawless and violent. He does not recognize federal courts – claiming they are illegitimate – does not recognize federal law, refuses to obey federal court orders, has already used force and violence against federal law enforcement officers while they were enforcing federal court orders, nearly causing catastrophic loss of life or injury to others. He has pledged to do so again in the future to keep federal law enforcement officers from enforcing the law against him. As of the date of this hearing, he continues to violate federal court orders and continues to possess the proceeds of his illegal activities.
Bundy is currently charged with crimes of violence including using and brandishing firearms in connection with crimes of violence under Title 18, United States Code, Section 924(c). As such, the Bail Reform Act presumes that there areno conditions or combination of conditions that will ensure the safety of the community. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(3)(B). Here, no evidence has been adduced during the investigation of the instant charges that even remotely hints at a rebuttal to that presumption. In fact, all the evidence suggests that Bundy will continue to act lawlessly, will not abide by court orders, and will use violence to ensure that federal laws are not enforced as to him.

While Bundy claims he is a cattle rancher, his ranching operation – to the extent it can be called that – is unconventional if not bizarre. Rather than manage and control his cattle, he lets them run wild on the public lands with little, if any, human interaction until such time when he traps them and hauls them off to be sold or slaughtered for his own consumption. He does not vaccinate or treat his cattle for disease; does not employ cowboys to control and herd them; does not manage or control breeding; has no knowledge of where all the cattle are located at any given time; rarely brands them before he captures them; and has to bait the minto traps in order to gather them.

[dreamon]

Did you consider that Frederick Douglass faced an actual deprivation of liberty? I did not know that the statement originated with him or in what context he said it. But as a former slave and abolitionist, he is someone who actually had very good reason to distrust his government. For most of his life he was not allowed to participate in the democratic process.

Don't you feel at all ashamed for invoking the words of a man who suffered one of the worst deprivations of liberty conceivable and using it to justify arson and other crimes?

Did you consider that even in modern times, people face a deprivation of liberty? You and I both do every day, our government continues to violate our liberties, spying on us through the NSA, forcibly garnishing wages, using those wages to murder innocent people in other countries (as well as our own), regulating our rights to participate on the free market, limiting our Second Amendment rights, limiting our Freedom of Speech and much more?