halconero Posted January 30, 2016 Posted January 30, 2016 53 minutes ago, 6EQUJ5 said: I generally don't like to agree with Canadians -- tends to inflate their egos -- but this post is spot on. It's okay, inflated egos are regularly checked under our universal healthcare plan. 4
thesometimesaint Posted January 30, 2016 Posted January 30, 2016 This rugged cowboy individualism is more fairy tail than reality. It was families, towns with the church, and school house doors open that settled the West.
Zakuska Posted January 30, 2016 Posted January 30, 2016 With all the hoopla this bundy inccident has raised and all the comments for and against, I have to wonder. How many armed conflicts against an over baring, armed to the teeth Federal Goverment and or corupt state goverments our own ancestors had to endure.
thesometimesaint Posted January 30, 2016 Posted January 30, 2016 9 minutes ago, Zakuska said: With all the hoopla this bundy inccident has raised and all the comments for and against, I have to wonder. How many armed conflicts against an over baring, armed to the teeth Federal Goverment and or corupt state goverments our own ancestors had to endure. They didn't mind a bit. They held slaves, women weren't considered at all, and Indians, and blacks were not people. They were thoroughly English in mentality, but as Colonists had no say in Parliament. They wanted a say. 1
Calm Posted January 30, 2016 Posted January 30, 2016 6 hours ago, 6EQUJ5 said: Clearly you feel their actions were God-ordained. You need to read his posts closer. 1
Darren10 Posted January 31, 2016 Posted January 31, 2016 16 hours ago, halconero said: It's okay, inflated egos are regularly checked under our universal healthcare plan. Please oh please check our President. 2
Darren10 Posted January 31, 2016 Posted January 31, 2016 On 1/29/2016 at 0:40 PM, Yirgacheffe said: What property of these men did the federal government destroy, I thought this was started over grazing on land that was already owned by the federal government? I linked a video of the federal government burning land under federal control which fires burned several cattle, killing several dozens, and a home was entirely burned down. Here's the link again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zvrrQbjepc The protest started after the Hammond family was resentenced to prison after serving their prison sentence. I explained it to Cinepro earlier. Here's the link to that post: http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/66928-bundy-group-arrested-one-dead/?page=4#comment-1209585324
The Nehor Posted January 31, 2016 Posted January 31, 2016 15 hours ago, Zakuska said: With all the hoopla this bundy inccident has raised and all the comments for and against, I have to wonder. How many armed conflicts against an over baring, armed to the teeth Federal Goverment and or corupt state goverments our own ancestors had to endure. Enough to know this is not real oppression. On January 30, 2016 at 1:13 AM, BlueDreams said: yeah....this is why I'm not going to go on the hunt and watch them. You've watched WAYYYY to much of this stuff. Yep. I was up till 3 Friday night catching up and I think I am done now. Going to watch from a distance unless something comes up. It will be several more days before they have to surrender due to lack of food.
The Nehor Posted January 31, 2016 Posted January 31, 2016 27 minutes ago, Darren10 said: Please oh please check our President. Trump isn't President yet.
The Nehor Posted January 31, 2016 Posted January 31, 2016 40 minutes ago, Darren10 said: I linked a video of the federal government burning land under federal control which fires burned several cattle, killing several dozens, and a home was entirely burned down. Here's the link again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zvrrQbjepc The protest started after the Hammond family was resentenced to prison after serving their prison sentence. I explained it to Cinepro earlier. Here's the link to that post: http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/66928-bundy-group-arrested-one-dead/?page=4#comment-1209585324 Here is a piece from a site dedicated to reports on fire danger putting together the Bundy timeline if anyone is interested: http://wildfiretoday.com/2016/01/05/the-timeline-for-the-oregon-rancher-arsonists/
Darren10 Posted February 1, 2016 Posted February 1, 2016 On 1/31/2016 at 1:37 AM, The Nehor said: Trump isn't President yet. He should be checked *before* he becomes President.
Darren10 Posted February 1, 2016 Posted February 1, 2016 On 1/31/2016 at 1:57 AM, The Nehor said: Here is a piece from a site dedicated to reports on fire danger putting together the Bundy timeline if anyone is interested: http://wildfiretoday.com/2016/01/05/the-timeline-for-the-oregon-rancher-arsonists/ Good perspective. I wonder when the government will arrest the government for setting fires that destroyed private property? 1
Darren10 Posted February 1, 2016 Posted February 1, 2016 On 1/29/2016 at 1:35 PM, thesometimesaint said: Civilians are not. Ask Timothy McVeigh. That is a 10ther argument, and a truism. SEE http://study.com/academy/lesson/the-10th-amendment-definition-summary-examples.html The 10th Amendment is the final amendment in the United States' Constitution's original Bill of Rights. It was added to assure delegates from the various states that the Federal Government would not step outside the boundaries established in the Constitution. The amendment reads: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. The Supreme Court has declared that the 10th Amendment is a truism. This means that the amendment doesn't really add anything new to the Constitution. It was just put in place to emphasize that the Federal Government has jurisdiction over some things, and state governments have jurisdiction over other things. In the United States, some powers belong to state governments and other powers belong to the Federal Government. We call this a federal system. But which powers go to which government? The 10th Amendment essentially explains this federal system. It says that anything that was not given to the Federal Government and not banned by the Constitution is a power of the states. Coming armed is by definition not peaceful. Read what George Washington do armed protesters in the Whiskey Rebellion. SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion Murder has a legal definition. My Lai was murder under US and South Vietnamese law. SEE http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/My+Lai+Massacre It is owned by the government; Controlled by government officials; approved by Congress; on behalf of all citizens. Try occupying a military installation threatening murder to any that try to stop you. The Piute were the original owners who lost possession of it when Oregon became a territory of the US. SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_evolution_of_the_United_State Quite frankly we stole virtual all of what was to become to the US from the natives fair and square and we ain't giving it back. "Civilians are not. Ask Timothy McVeigh. That is a 10ther argument, and a truism. SEE http://study.com/academy/lesson/the-10th-amendment-definition-summary-examples.html " I wasn't even remotely thinking about the 10th Amendment. I was thinking more along the lines of the 1st and 2nd Amendments. Citing McVeigh, let's switch roles for a second. If a US soldier were ordered by a US president to do exactly what McVeigh did you would find no criminal activity in that? If a law enforcement officer took a family member of yours into custody and then. while that member was handcuffed, started to beat the daylights out of him/her, then you pull a weapon and fire it on the officer killing him/her, you'd find yourself a murderer? You'd find the US soldier who sent arsenic in the mail system to federal buildings as one who dutifully carried out his orders. No wrong doing? You'd find the US President free of criminal activity simply because he's President? Don't loose sight of the fact that I do not condone the Bundy protestor's actions. But despite my non acceptance of their tactics, I have lots of sympathy for their cause. Also, I am not so submissive to governmental authority as you are. There are nature rights by which the US Constitution was founded that allows "commoners" like you and me to defend our persons, loved ones, and properties. There also needs to be a separation of powers of the US government. One big government *always* thwarts the rights of individual liberties. The two cannot coexist at the same time so far as I can tell. "It says that anything that was not given to the Federal Government and not banned by the Constitution is a power of the states." You are wrong. it does not say, "and banned" by the Constitution. In fact, banned powers such as setting up an official religion were prohibitive for the federal government, the states were 100% free to pass whatever laws they wanted. In fact, all 13 colonies practiced an official religion after the Constitution was ratified and not a single Founding Father opposed that practice. The opposed the laws establishing a religion but they went to their respective state to overturn these laws. It was not the perview of the federal government to impose the constitution's Bill of Rights onto the states. Here's what you correctly cited as the 1th Amendment: It says that anything that was not given to the Federal Government and not banned by the Constitution is a power of the states. That seems to me that there are powers explicitly given to the federal government and powers explicitly denied to the states. Beyond that every governmental power belongs to the states. 1
ERayR Posted February 1, 2016 Posted February 1, 2016 On 1/30/2016 at 9:18 AM, thesometimesaint said: This rugged cowboy individualism is more fairy tail than reality. It was families, towns with the church, and school house doors open that settled the West. It is clear that your view is a bit myopic. The "rugged cowboy individualism" type came first and prepared the way for the "families, towns with the church, and school house doors". Without the first the second could not have happened. Also there was a liberal sprinkling of the first among the second. 1
ERayR Posted February 1, 2016 Posted February 1, 2016 On 1/31/2016 at 0:37 AM, The Nehor said: Trump isn't President yet. You are correct we don't really have a President.
thesometimesaint Posted February 1, 2016 Posted February 1, 2016 Cowboy culture is a product of the Civil War when displaced southern whites started migrating west.
Darren10 Posted February 1, 2016 Posted February 1, 2016 2 hours ago, thesometimesaint said: Cowboy culture is a product of the Civil War when displaced southern whites started migrating west. You mean it's not a product of John Wayne?
The Nehor Posted February 2, 2016 Posted February 2, 2016 8 hours ago, Darren10 said: Good perspective. I wonder when the government will arrest the government for setting fires that destroyed private property? Not really, most of the damage was on federal land leased to private landholders. If private land was destroyed a lawsuit would be the obvious course of action with these proof videos everyone trumpets as damning. If the land destroyed was government land leased to ranchers they can complain a lot but do nothing which is what they are doing. 7 hours ago, ERayR said: You are correct we don't really have a President. Actually we do. I think he has done pretty well in the job. 8 hours ago, Darren10 said: "Civilians are not. Ask Timothy McVeigh. That is a 10ther argument, and a truism. SEE http://study.com/academy/lesson/the-10th-amendment-definition-summary-examples.html " I wasn't even remotely thinking about the 10th Amendment. I was thinking more along the lines of the 1st and 2nd Amendments. Citing McVeigh, let's switch roles for a second. If a US soldier were ordered by a US president to do exactly what McVeigh did you would find no criminal activity in that? If a law enforcement officer took a family member of yours into custody and then. while that member was handcuffed, started to beat the daylights out of him/her, then you pull a weapon and fire it on the officer killing him/her, you'd find yourself a murderer? You'd find the US soldier who sent arsenic in the mail system to federal buildings as one who dutifully carried out his orders. No wrong doing? You'd find the US President free of criminal activity simply because he's President? Don't loose sight of the fact that I do not condone the Bundy protestor's actions. But despite my non acceptance of their tactics, I have lots of sympathy for their cause. Also, I am not so submissive to governmental authority as you are. There are nature rights by which the US Constitution was founded that allows "commoners" like you and me to defend our persons, loved ones, and properties. There also needs to be a separation of powers of the US government. One big government *always* thwarts the rights of individual liberties. The two cannot coexist at the same time so far as I can tell. "It says that anything that was not given to the Federal Government and not banned by the Constitution is a power of the states." You are wrong. it does not say, "and banned" by the Constitution. In fact, banned powers such as setting up an official religion were prohibitive for the federal government, the states were 100% free to pass whatever laws they wanted. In fact, all 13 colonies practiced an official religion after the Constitution was ratified and not a single Founding Father opposed that practice. The opposed the laws establishing a religion but they went to their respective state to overturn these laws. It was not the perview of the federal government to impose the constitution's Bill of Rights onto the states. Here's what you correctly cited as the 1th Amendment: It says that anything that was not given to the Federal Government and not banned by the Constitution is a power of the states. That seems to me that there are powers explicitly given to the federal government and powers explicitly denied to the states. Beyond that every governmental power belongs to the states. The 10th Amendment establishes nothing. It was thrown in as a sop to placate moderates after the Federalist/Anti-Federalist debates. The President cannot be charged for criminal activity except by first being impeached. It may surprise you to learn that this was a position iterated in the Federalist Papers and supported by John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. John Adams was asked if a President committed "murder in the streets" could he remain free. The response: "Why when he is no longer President, you can indict him." "The leading principle of our Constitution is the independence of the Legislature, executive and judiciary of each other, and none are more jealous of this than the judiciary. But would the executive be independent of the judiciary, if he were subject to the commands of the latter, [and] to imprisonment for disobedience; if the several courts could bandy him from pillar to post, keep him constantly trudging from north to south [and] east to west, and withdraw him entirely from his constitutional duties? The intention of the Constitution, that each branch should be independent of the others, is further manifested by the means it has furnished to each, to protect itself from enterprises of force attempted on them by the others, and to none has it given more effectual or diversified means than to the executive." -Thomas Jefferson This applies to both the federal and state levels and, by extension from the state, to local levels. The only way to try a President is to remove them from office via impeachment which is a power clearly limited to Congress. I also do not see any evidence that a large government is inherently more oppressive then a small one. Many oppressive governments are quite small except perhaps for military strength and if military strength is equivalent to oppression then the United States is the most oppressed nation on earth but "small government" types usually still assume we need a dozen aircraft carriers and that spending more then the next 8 biggest spending nations is completely justified. I have heard you argue that military strength is a sign of righteousness on this board.
strappinglad Posted February 2, 2016 Posted February 2, 2016 8 hours ago, Darren10 said: " That seems to me that there are powers explicitly given to the federal government and powers explicitly denied to the states. Beyond that every governmental power belongs to the states. Don't forget the part that states " or to the people " Areas that are not specifically set apart for the Feds and the States are to go to the people. Nowadays, that doesn't leave the people with much, does it. Federal and State encroachment( some would say overreach ) has seen the ability of individuals to control their own lives fade substantially. Between the BLM , the FDA, the EPA, and other eminent domain agencies, a citizen is lucky to be able to mow his front lawn without a permit.
Sevenbak Posted February 2, 2016 Posted February 2, 2016 I shot an interview with Finicum's son today for KSL. Very interesting stuff, will air at 10 pm tonight. Desnews will take our stuff and do a longer version for tomorrow. 2
Calm Posted February 2, 2016 Posted February 2, 2016 Quote Not really, most of the damage was on federal land leased to private landholders. Perhaps he is talking not about land, but cattle as I believe the term he used was "property" and that can be used in the sense of "possessions" and not just "land".
thesometimesaint Posted February 2, 2016 Posted February 2, 2016 12 hours ago, Darren10 said: You mean it's not a product of John Wayne? For better or worse no. The over-romanticized version is a product of Hollywood.
Tacenda Posted February 2, 2016 Posted February 2, 2016 49 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said: For better or worse no. The over-romanticized version is a product of Hollywood. I'll bet there's a movie about this whole ordeal.
thesometimesaint Posted February 2, 2016 Posted February 2, 2016 3 minutes ago, Tacenda said: I'll bet there's a movie about this whole ordeal. Unfortunately probably true.
Tacenda Posted February 2, 2016 Posted February 2, 2016 http://www.addictinginfo.org/2016/02/02/cliven-bundy-takes-charge-of-remaining-oregon-militiamen-says-they-will-continue-occupation-indefinitely/ This Cliven Bundy taking over now is crazy...just listen to your son and end it.
Recommended Posts