Dream on. Let's us know when the drugs wear off and you're back in the real world.
Printable View
Dream on. Let's us know when the drugs wear off and you're back in the real world.
Just gave that drivel a "thumbs up" by mistake...second time my fat fingers made a mistake on this thread.
...anyway,...people see what they want to see. It's always been that way.
...and to dispel other bull shit: none of them are "Patriots".
If we were conspiracy theorists like these militia nuts this is how infuriating the discussion would be for dreamon. First, we would say we did not believe he was dead; show me a body. Then when we see pictures of the body, we'd say we don't believe it's Finicum, show me dna evidence. Then when the dna evidence was brought forward we'd say there never was a Finicum, he was an actor.
Be thankful that we're sane and simply saying that he was clearly shot while reaching for a gun. The shooting was caught on video and the video shows him reaching around his waistband when he was shot. Like the other nutjobs, nothing he said during his lifetime made any fucking sense and nothing being said about him afterward does either. But he was alive, he was shot, and now he's dead.
These are not patriots but people with a warped understanding of our constitution, no respect for law enforcement or the rule of law.
Thank You Trish...that's an excellent article which breaks it down nicely. It's amazing the amount of rope LE gives these guys but it's still not enough. Immediately, the explanation had to be murder to folks willing to lie, even to themselves, for their own political causes. As if Finicum was so important that he needed to be assassinated...give me a break. It's amazing how people willfully blind themselves with hate.
How weak.
It looks like he didn't pay back that accidental thumbs up with kindness:).Quote:
Originally Posted by fred41
He down voted us all quietly...from a secluded position...while our hands were in the air.Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
I might've been reaching for a Tic Tac...I don't remember.
I personally see these militia groups as being just like biker gangs, gangs of outrageous transsexuals, the KKK, or any other group of "outlaws" that cling together against a general population that doesn't really approve of them.
If Dreamon, wants to take a stand, I would say quote Trump and Cruz when they point out that the USA is 19 trillion in debt.
When you're that far beyond broke, it means Social Security, the Military, Infrastructure, Medicare, .......EVERYTHING is broke. Functioning on life support only.
To me, this is a thousand times more important than Bundy, even if they were machine gunned down in the snow. Shit Happens.
To me, unlike Trump and Cruz, I see Hillary as the best candidate to tackle this debt, based on nothing more than personal intuition.
Furthuremore, Trish insulting drug use went WAY OVER THE LINE, in my opinion.
I would like to take this opportunity thank Bruncofan's Awesome Defense for spanking Tom Brady's precious ass, better start hydrating up for Sunday's game.
Cliven has been arrested and the four remaining armed assholes in the Park are about to surrender.
http://nyti.ms/1PPqVte
Asshole-gate is almost over and what have we learned? Maybe that you can convince a bunch of morons you have a point even when you don't just by tapping into angst and paranoia. But at the end of the day, the morons don't decide what's legal and what's not.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
I would like the feds to execute on the various judgments against Mr. Bundy in addition to holding him criminally responsible for his actions. Maybe auction off his cows and use the money to help women without resources get abortions.
Why should anyone be able to avoid complying with court orders just because they tap into the paranoia of an extremist subculture and threaten rebellion? These are the fruits of their actions.
David Fry was the last man at Malheur Refuge to surrender. In the hour or so before he finally turned himself in he asked for pizza and marijuana, threatened suicide and ranted about abortion, drone strikes and U.F.O.'s. What a group of goofballs. How'd these mentally and psychologically impaired losers acquire licenses to carry firearms in the first place?
I haven't checked my user ratings but I think someone here has a case of hero worship. In case you were wondering it does not actually send an electric shock through my system when I get a negative vote. You can't stop the commentary just like you can't stop the federal government from prosecuting cattle ranching traitors who don't pay their debts. It seems like a good idea to regularly update this thread with news as the prosecution commences through to conviction and incarceration. And on and on she goes until all the outlaws are rounded up and justice is served:).
Sometimes the wheels of justice run slow (sometimes, perhaps in this case, sensibly so...) but eventually they catch up...http://www.npr.org/2016/02/11/466451...to-take-action
...It does leave me to wonder that, if only this old fool would've learned to keep his dumb yap shut and stay put, might he have gotten away with it all unscathed ?...:)
I've given you a positive vote because I like your post Fred, but also as a bulwark against tyranny. Sic semper ......but seriously this Cliven Bundy doesn't seem much like a patriot to me...he's got a certain je ne sais quoi, like he's French or possibly just highly un-American.:)
He may be French...since the word "douche" is french.Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
ToucheQuote:
Originally Posted by fred41
dreamon and Bobvela are so angry they can't put it into words. Just use your firearms boys.
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/...rrests/462525/
For Bobvela. I had hoped he only snuck firearms into private establishments that expressly forbid it but it seems he also supports sedition. For shame. I expected him to offer a reasonable view on this:cry:. There will be more updates in weeks to come.
Speak of the devil and he doth appear.
You hope I do what now?
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.
Sure, it's been a little inconvenient having my local movie theater on that list (after they decided to search my wife's purse when we went to see a film back in 2012, completely unaware of what was lawfully holstered inside of my waistband) we soon found a better place which isn't all that much further away and has food & booze available for order (I just wish I could hit the can while still watching the film).
You want my opinion on the Oregon standoff? Here it is: While I agree with their beefs, I do not agree with their methods.
Want more?
I subscribe to the "four boxes of liberty" view which can be summarized as: "There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury and ammo. Please use in that order."
The nuts in Oregon didn't fully exhaust their options for #1 & #2 and skipped ahead to #4... and now clearly hope #3 will save their butts after their previous resorting to #4.
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?
The delayed law enforcement response was also fully predictable, not because of the color of the skin of the protestors (as supporters of say, the 4th precinct protestors in Minneapolis have been quick to claim), but an institutional memory of previous standoffs of that sort... which your article mentions.
I agree that the feds own more state land in the west than they should, however there are better initial ways to address this... such as the Article V process, something that is gaining steam (though for other reasons). I agree that Dwight & Steven Hammond got raw deals. This was a way to bring attention to both issues... but not a very good way.
Alas I do foresee multiple days where we see large armed conflicts between civilian groups and the federal government... not only because of increased federal encroachment of individual liberties, but because of a sense that #1 & #2 aren't working. The continued existence of Hillary on the campaign trail is an example of this, as is the support for Sanders in opposition... of course both seek to contribute to the decline that neither actually seek to prevent.
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?
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?Quote:
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?
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.
(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.Quote:
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.
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.
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.
Only if it goes his way.
The idea originates with Frederick Douglas. He didn't include the soap box, just ballot, jury and ammo.Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by dreamon
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?
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.
Cliven Bundy was denied bail today. Hooray!
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/0...Bundy-in-court
Some excepts
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
Oh you poor poor boy. Your "rights" to participate in a market free of regulation against fraud and deception are being abridged! How awful. You and your neighbors can't buy shoulder fired missile launchers without attracting the attentions of nosy government bureaucrats. How horrible for you. You can't even let your dog shit in the park without some health official nagging you to pick it up. Am I right? I had a right to go bird-watching at Malheur Wildlife Refuge this winter, every person in America did. It's our land. It belongs to all of us collectively. Then a handful of armed yahoos who don't understand the difference between democracy and anarchy took it over and vandalized the place. Such hard lives we live, right? I mean compared to that of Frederick Douglass. He only had to endure the knowledge that perhaps someday in the future a couple of assholes in a pornographic chat room will twist his words to suit their own conclusions. That's what you get when you learn to read and write.
Speaking of rights, I'm wondering if I'll be turned away at the voting booth this November because of new State voter registration laws. I'm sure you're against them too.
All you need in America is a fucking gun. Not certain why you are even bothering to have a election.
None of the examples you give. I have difficulty comparing the withholding of taxes to a person being classified as property. I don't think the government preventing consumer products from having lead in them is comparable either. Spying by looking at metadata and other electronic transmissions can be intrusive but is trivial compared to being separated from your relatives, subjected to forced labor for no wage, and being beaten or killed at the whim of a slave-owner. All of your examples are shit and an embarrassment. Thumbs down my post....it doesn't change anything and can be easily reciprocated.Quote:
Originally Posted by dreamon
Even if the NSA intrusions were fourth amendment violations, there are at least other interests the government is trying to safeguard in the process. The remedy for constitutional violations is that evidence is excluded from trial, laws are struck down as unconstitutional, or officers are enjoined from taking certain actions. It is contemplated as part of life that there will be judicial remedies for constitutional violations.
The institution of slavery by contrast was something extraordinary. There was no weighing of interests; it was the objectification and commodification of your fellow human beings. It was inhumane, sadistic, and greedy. It should not be placed on a continuum with everyday intrusions that a court may remedy by issuing an injunction or by excluding evidence from trial. Nobody who valued African-Americans as people could have ever attempted to justify slavery as a balancing of interests. So, it does not make sense for it to be compared to potential constitutional violations where a balancing of rights and exigency takes place.
I just wanted to add that distinction to my previous conclusion that your complaints are entirely trivial.
It would also be nice if some of these anti-government nuts would put the same energy into civil rights advocacy as they put into abusing the memory of former slaves and abolitionists. Why is slavery not used as a lesson for how we should treat minorities but instead the basis of flimsy slippery slope arguments by organizations and groups that despise minorities in any other context? Enforcing federal law on federal land is not the first step to tyranny. If the government spies on you, you don't not know how Frederick Douglass felt. . Please children. We have a court system and you can challenge virtually any harm committed against you.
You probably consider what Apple is doing to be obstructionist. What a dick.Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
The Apple controversy is probably a good topic for a different thread.
If it were possible to hack into that one phone (was it Farook's) without creating a universal software-key for all Apple phones, then I would say Apple should comply with the subpoena. This (I think) would maintain the personal privacy of the larger public and provide valuable information for keeping the larger public safe from terrorists. On the downside it would not be so good for Apple's reputation and it would put wedge in the door making many us feel less secure in our privacy.
As Apple explains it, it is not possible to hack into just one phone. They would have to write software that is essentially a universal key. There would be no way to guarantee the security of key. Not only might law enforcement agencies use it in unwarranted ways, but it would inevitably leak into the public domain where criminals would use it to commit fraud, theft and other nefarious crimes.
One question is, is Apple correct? They're certainly between a rock and hard place. Most hard-ass-let's-carpet-bomb-'em-to-oblivion types are against anyone or anything that might provide protection for a terrorist. Libertarians, on the other knee, jerk the other way. Both are right wing stances. The rest of us are aware of the complexities and nuances of the issue.
Currently, I lean in favor of Apple (as if any action will depend upon my leaning - dickish or not) because I think the case they make is probably correct. Certainly if Apple writes a skeleton key, it will eventually end up in the hands of criminals. The risk of being a victim from illicit use of such a key is (I think) greater than the risk of being a victim of terrorism. The only problem with this argument is it relies on an assumption (Apple has to make a universal key to crack Farook's phone) that I'm taking on authority (Apple's). Another seemingly relevant question is: once the key is made, can all other phones be quickly updated by having customers download and install modified OS's that defeat the key?
I created another thread for the continuation of the topic of Apple vs National Security.
There was nothing in my post to indicate that.Quote:
Originally Posted by dreamon
In the apple case, it is not a matter of whether the government has cause to search one phone, as it appears they do. It is whether they should have access to a universal key that would make it possible for them to search other phones (even if they promise they will not).
Nothing in my previous post should be construed to indicate I am okay with fourth amendment violations either. I was only saying that when one's constitutional rights have been violated, it is not cause for rebellion but is redressable by a court (often it is a court that needs to arbitrate whether there has been a violation to begin with; this is one of the main functions of the judiciary!).
That was the "even if" part of my post you seized on. I don't think the Bundys have been unjustly deprived of liberty. As they sit in jail cells they have been deprived of liberty, but nothing there is inconsistent with due process.