The Nehor Posted February 2, 2016 Posted February 2, 2016 3 hours ago, Tacenda said: 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. He is not taking control. He is just making noise. The only ones who will decide when the standoff ends are the four people still there. He might have opened himself up to criminal liability though by claiming he is in charge.
The Nehor Posted February 2, 2016 Posted February 2, 2016 Update The four remaining members are still there but they have now been cut off electronically. While Cliven Bundy has claimed he is now in charge he has no way of communicating with the occupiers so that gesture seems meaningless. Ammon Bundy and the others in custody have called on the occupiers to stand down but their calls have gone unheeded. The government is holding all of them without bail until the standoff ends. It is unclear if Ammon's reason for trying to call off the occupiers is for his stated purpose that the battle must now be fought in the courts (laughable) or whether he and the rest of the arrested are just tired of sitting in jail and want the standoff ended so they can possibly be released.
thesometimesaint Posted February 2, 2016 Posted February 2, 2016 2 hours ago, The Nehor said: Update The four remaining members are still there but they have now been cut off electronically. While Cliven Bundy has claimed he is now in charge he has no way of communicating with the occupiers so that gesture seems meaningless. Ammon Bundy and the others in custody have called on the occupiers to stand down but their calls have gone unheeded. The government is holding all of them without bail until the standoff ends. It is unclear if Ammon's reason for trying to call off the occupiers is for his stated purpose that the battle must now be fought in the courts (laughable) or whether he and the rest of the arrested are just tired of sitting in jail and want the standoff ended so they can possibly be released. They should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. If I had my way they'd spend the rest of their lives in a small cell.
Darren10 Posted February 2, 2016 Posted February 2, 2016 15 hours ago, The Nehor said: 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. Actually we do. I think he has done pretty well in the job. 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. "The 10th Amendment establishes nothing. It was thrown in as a sop to placate moderates after the Federalist/Anti-Federalist debates." - It was concluded that redundancy better preserves individual rights. The 10th Amendment reinforces where the bulk of government power should rest: at the state level. The President may *absolutely* be indicted but claim executive privilege to protect him against any action from the indictment. Impeachment is the constitutional means to "bring up charges" in order to be removed from office. The impeachment must then be acted on by the Senate. Everything you cited from Jefferson is thwarted when the federal government gets too powerful. The bulk of power in government today is in the Executive as the Legislative branch has acted either in cowardice or in collusion with the Executive for it to do as it pleases. "I have heard you argue that military strength is a sign of righteousness on this board." - Because ultimately God sides with the righteous and thus the righteous are strengthened. I applied this to Joseph Smith in being in command of the Nauvoo militia. However, I do not view military strength as inherently indicative to righteousness. I do see the preservation of freedom as such but not military strength in and of itself. 1
Darren10 Posted February 2, 2016 Posted February 2, 2016 23 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said: They should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. If I had my way they'd spend the rest of their lives in a small cell. Can't stand against big government, can we? That's bad. 1
ERayR Posted February 2, 2016 Posted February 2, 2016 30 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said: They should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. If I had my way they'd spend the rest of their lives in a small cell. It is a good thing that you are such an understanding and magnanimous person.
thesometimesaint Posted February 2, 2016 Posted February 2, 2016 8 minutes ago, ERayR said: It is a good thing that you are such an understanding and magnanimous person. You may be right. I should be more understanding and magnanimous to Governor Lilburn Boggs.
ERayR Posted February 2, 2016 Posted February 2, 2016 3 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said: You may be right. I should be more understanding and magnanimous to Governor Lilburn Boggs. What an inane reply. How does it even pertain to the Oregon activities?
Tacenda Posted February 2, 2016 Posted February 2, 2016 I don't believe they should be jailed or in prison for a long time, I hope they can get back to their families and realize what a dumb thing it was.
thesometimesaint Posted February 2, 2016 Posted February 2, 2016 4 minutes ago, ERayR said: What an inane reply. How does it even pertain to the Oregon activities? You seem to have a strange idea as to what those Oregon activities are.
ERayR Posted February 2, 2016 Posted February 2, 2016 7 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said: You seem to have a strange idea as to what those Oregon activities are. I know exactly what they are and understand their origins and the reasons behind them. It is you who, it appears, has no understanding of what is in play.
thesometimesaint Posted February 2, 2016 Posted February 2, 2016 8 minutes ago, ERayR said: I know exactly what they are and understand their origins and the reasons behind them. It is you who, it appears, has no understanding of what is in play. Please enlighten us all with your pearls of wisdom.
Calm Posted February 2, 2016 Posted February 2, 2016 7 hours ago, The Nehor said: He might have opened himself up to criminal liability though by claiming he is in charge. He should be if he is intentionally inserting himself into the drama (given the past attention paid to him, not every loon who makes a claim would be equally liable in my view).
Calm Posted February 2, 2016 Posted February 2, 2016 4 hours ago, Tacenda said: I don't believe they should be jailed or in prison for a long time, I hope they can get back to their families and realize what a dumb thing it was. I think they should be fined for the damage they did. I think those who stated they would be willing to fight to the death should be held responsible for inciting violence.
thesometimesaint Posted February 2, 2016 Posted February 2, 2016 10 minutes ago, Calm said: I think they should be fined for the damage they did. I think those who stated they would be willing to fight to the death should be held responsible for inciting violence. Cliven Bundy still hasn't paid the fee's for his misuse of Federal property. I doubt that any future fines will be paid either.
The Nehor Posted February 2, 2016 Posted February 2, 2016 7 hours ago, thesometimesaint said: They should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. If I had my way they'd spend the rest of their lives in a small cell. I think that might be extreme. They should all serve mild to moderate prison sentences depending on how involved they were and be charged/fined for all the damage they have done to federal property that taxpayer dollars will spend to clean up. Maybe add in some more for all the overtime federal employees are getting for this insanity. 7 hours ago, Darren10 said: "The 10th Amendment establishes nothing. It was thrown in as a sop to placate moderates after the Federalist/Anti-Federalist debates." - It was concluded that redundancy better preserves individual rights. The 10th Amendment reinforces where the bulk of government power should rest: at the state level. The President may *absolutely* be indicted but claim executive privilege to protect him against any action from the indictment. Impeachment is the constitutional means to "bring up charges" in order to be removed from office. The impeachment must then be acted on by the Senate. Everything you cited from Jefferson is thwarted when the federal government gets too powerful. The bulk of power in government today is in the Executive as the Legislative branch has acted either in cowardice or in collusion with the Executive for it to do as it pleases. "I have heard you argue that military strength is a sign of righteousness on this board." - Because ultimately God sides with the righteous and thus the righteous are strengthened. I applied this to Joseph Smith in being in command of the Nauvoo militia. However, I do not view military strength as inherently indicative to righteousness. I do see the preservation of freedom as such but not military strength in and of itself. If you are trying to bring back Pre-Civil War era federalism good luck. Sadly state's rights have historically been mostly about racism (slavery, desegregation) and preserving entrenched elite interests so be careful who you get into bed with. I disagree that the Executive branch has usurped the Legislative. If it had Obama would not currently be able to do almost nothing. Despite far-right crying about his vast evils little is being accomplished. 7 hours ago, Darren10 said: Can't stand against big government, can we? That's bad. It is baffling to me that most anti-big government types want a government so weak they can drown it in a bathtub but also support a strong activist military interfering world-wide. In other words my government is bad when it does anything coercive to me but I am okay with coercion against foreigners. An odd moral stance. They also fail to realize that they are building up the very force they will have to topple if they want a revolution or to seize federal land. 2 hours ago, thesometimesaint said: Cliven Bundy still hasn't paid the fee's for his misuse of Federal property. I doubt that any future fines will be paid either. He needs to be locked up. 1
Popular Post The Nehor Posted February 3, 2016 Popular Post Posted February 3, 2016 Update: It has been reported that the occupiers came out briefly yesterday but saw their own shadow and rushed back terrified. Looks like six more weeks of standoff. 9
Darren10 Posted February 5, 2016 Posted February 5, 2016 On 2/2/2016 at 4:58 PM, The Nehor said: I think that might be extreme. They should all serve mild to moderate prison sentences depending on how involved they were and be charged/fined for all the damage they have done to federal property that taxpayer dollars will spend to clean up. Maybe add in some more for all the overtime federal employees are getting for this insanity. If you are trying to bring back Pre-Civil War era federalism good luck. Sadly state's rights have historically been mostly about racism (slavery, desegregation) and preserving entrenched elite interests so be careful who you get into bed with. I disagree that the Executive branch has usurped the Legislative. If it had Obama would not currently be able to do almost nothing. Despite far-right crying about his vast evils little is being accomplished. It is baffling to me that most anti-big government types want a government so weak they can drown it in a bathtub but also support a strong activist military interfering world-wide. In other words my government is bad when it does anything coercive to me but I am okay with coercion against foreigners. An odd moral stance. They also fail to realize that they are building up the very force they will have to topple if they want a revolution or to seize federal land. He needs to be locked up. "If you are trying to bring back Pre-Civil War era federalism good luck. Sadly state's rights have historically been mostly about racism (slavery, desegregation) and preserving entrenched elite interests so be careful who you get into bed with. I disagree that the Executive branch has usurped the Legislative. If it had Obama would not currently be able to do almost nothing. Despite far-right crying about his vast evils little is being accomplished." States rights were not about preserving an elite. Central government does that. Your voice is far more potent in your state than in Washington. It's even more potent at the city level, still stronger at the local level like at a school board, and most potent for yourself and your own home. The more local your voice is, the stronger it gets. You can and will preserve your freedoms much better than one strong central government. Centralizing power also centralizes passion and great conflict usually results. The Bundy conflict is a perfect example. Gay marriage is another example. School compulsions vs school choice is yet another. EPA regulations yet another. Although Obama is not an absolute king, he has indeed usurped Congress and as a collective body, Congress is complicit with it. Many in DC think that centralizing power is good and many of them think it is good mainly because it enhances their own power over others. Regarding the Oregon protesters, regulations like protecting and endangered species results in significant changes for ranchers all around federally controlled land. You honestly view regulations to protect the Mojave tortoise is about the collective good and not empowering an elite group of people over the masses? Polar bears as well? Yes, government must be small domestically. Local regulations can and do hurt people. So far as a strong military presence in the world, where would the world be without the US Navy keeping pirates at bay? Untold millions of people economically prosper by keeping the shipping lanes open and free. Iraq had its first democratically elected government in probably the entire history of that people inhabiting that land. Pulling the troops out prematurely (it will take decades and one or two generations of troops there to truly accomplish the mission) resulted in ISIS. Arguably Japan and Germany would not be allies with the US as democratic countries were it not for the long term presence of US troops. I am not arguing for indefinite presence of military forces but that their dedicated and long term presence has and does most definitely help the world. I do not know of any country in the history of anything which defeated its attackers only to give their land back to the people to govern. That's one example of American exceptionalism. 1
Darren10 Posted February 5, 2016 Posted February 5, 2016 Very well said: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/01/06/oregon-congressman-those-occupiers-kind-of-have-a-point/ There's another good article written but I need access to facebook to find it. 1
thesometimesaint Posted February 5, 2016 Posted February 5, 2016 1 hour ago, Darren10 said: "If you are trying to bring back Pre-Civil War era federalism good luck. Sadly state's rights have historically been mostly about racism (slavery, desegregation) and preserving entrenched elite interests so be careful who you get into bed with. I disagree that the Executive branch has usurped the Legislative. If it had Obama would not currently be able to do almost nothing. Despite far-right crying about his vast evils little is being accomplished." States rights were not about preserving an elite. Central government does that. Your voice is far more potent in your state than in Washington. It's even more potent at the city level, still stronger at the local level like at a school board, and most potent for yourself and your own home. The more local your voice is, the stronger it gets. You can and will preserve your freedoms much better than one strong central government. Centralizing power also centralizes passion and great conflict usually results. The Bundy conflict is a perfect example. Gay marriage is another example. School compulsions vs school choice is yet another. EPA regulations yet another. Although Obama is not an absolute king, he has indeed usurped Congress and as a collective body, Congress is complicit with it. Many in DC think that centralizing power is good and many of them think it is good mainly because it enhances their own power over others. Regarding the Oregon protesters, regulations like protecting and endangered species results in significant changes for ranchers all around federally controlled land. You honestly view regulations to protect the Mojave tortoise is about the collective good and not empowering an elite group of people over the masses? Polar bears as well? Yes, government must be small domestically. Local regulations can and do hurt people. So far as a strong military presence in the world, where would the world be without the US Navy keeping pirates at bay? Untold millions of people economically prosper by keeping the shipping lanes open and free. Iraq had its first democratically elected government in probably the entire history of that people inhabiting that land. Pulling the troops out prematurely (it will take decades and one or two generations of troops there to truly accomplish the mission) resulted in ISIS. Arguably Japan and Germany would not be allies with the US as democratic countries were it not for the long term presence of US troops. I am not arguing for indefinite presence of military forces but that their dedicated and long term presence has and does most definitely help the world. I do not know of any country in the history of anything which defeated its attackers only to give their land back to the people to govern. That's one example of American exceptionalism. Here is what George Washington did to armed opposition SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion
The Nehor Posted February 6, 2016 Posted February 6, 2016 14 hours ago, Darren10 said: Very well said: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/01/06/oregon-congressman-those-occupiers-kind-of-have-a-point/ There's another good article written but I need access to facebook to find it. What an idiot. They have a right to protest so they kind of have a point? Then go protest. It has worked for many others but why do you give any credence to these people who are too stupid to understand how protesting works? Does he really thing this is the best way to try to score some political points with the idiocracy of his constituency?
The Nehor Posted February 6, 2016 Posted February 6, 2016 14 hours ago, Darren10 said: "If you are trying to bring back Pre-Civil War era federalism good luck. Sadly state's rights have historically been mostly about racism (slavery, desegregation) and preserving entrenched elite interests so be careful who you get into bed with. I disagree that the Executive branch has usurped the Legislative. If it had Obama would not currently be able to do almost nothing. Despite far-right crying about his vast evils little is being accomplished." States rights were not about preserving an elite. Central government does that. Your voice is far more potent in your state than in Washington. It's even more potent at the city level, still stronger at the local level like at a school board, and most potent for yourself and your own home. The more local your voice is, the stronger it gets. You can and will preserve your freedoms much better than one strong central government. While both levels can do that historically states have been more oppressive then the federal government and state government usually less oppressive then local. While people do have more of a say at the local level it is also much more prone to corruption and oppressing minorities. Slavery was fought for on the state level. Defacto slavery after the Civil War was maintained in the South on the local and the state level. Segregation was fought for on the state level. In each on these cases the federal government eventually stepped in and stomped on it as it should be. The advantage of the federal government is it does not have economic and personal ties to most of what is going on on the state level so it can bash corruption and oppression. It is also worth noting that the early Saints were oppressed on the state level and when they went to the federal government for relief they refused on the basis that one of the states would turn against them. The end of the "state's supremacy" group has meant a LOT less of that going on. 14 hours ago, Darren10 said: Centralizing power also centralizes passion and great conflict usually results. The Bundy conflict is a perfect example. Gay marriage is another example. School compulsions vs school choice is yet another. EPA regulations yet another. Although Obama is not an absolute king, he has indeed usurped Congress and as a collective body, Congress is complicit with it. Many in DC think that centralizing power is good and many of them think it is good mainly because it enhances their own power over others. Regarding the Oregon protesters, regulations like protecting and endangered species results in significant changes for ranchers all around federally controlled land. You honestly view regulations to protect the Mojave tortoise is about the collective good and not empowering an elite group of people over the masses? Polar bears as well? You have obviously drunk the Kool-Aid. Remember when mom said television would rot your brain. Listening to right wing radio does the same thing. If you listen to it long enough you start to believe it. I think the EPA has, with some exceptions, done a good job. Then again I took the time to do some research. I encourage you to go look at pictures of many cities before the EPA or rivers or random dumping grounds. Before the EPA you could pretty much emit as much pollution and dump as much stuff into the river and/or groundwater as you wanted. It was "tragedy of the commons" gone amuck. Someone had to step in and say that no, you cannot make the air unbreathable or poison the water supply just because you do not have to breathe or drink it. I think protecting endangered species is of value for its own sake and does not come down to a choice between people's right to use their land as badly as they like and some elite cabal seeking to control people. It is part of being decent stewards of the earth. It may surprise you but most people who are concerned about the ecosystem are just concerned about the ecosystem. 14 hours ago, Darren10 said: Yes, government must be small domestically. Local regulations can and do hurt people. So far as a strong military presence in the world, where would the world be without the US Navy keeping pirates at bay? Untold millions of people economically prosper by keeping the shipping lanes open and free. Iraq had its first democratically elected government in probably the entire history of that people inhabiting that land. Pulling the troops out prematurely (it will take decades and one or two generations of troops there to truly accomplish the mission) resulted in ISIS. Arguably Japan and Germany would not be allies with the US as democratic countries were it not for the long term presence of US troops. I am not arguing for indefinite presence of military forces but that their dedicated and long term presence has and does most definitely help the world. I do not know of any country in the history of anything which defeated its attackers only to give their land back to the people to govern. That's one example of American exceptionalism. No, it does not have to be small. Because the bulk of our military spending goes to anti-pirate operations? Please. Iraq's election is a sham. We have not brought democracy. It might have worked if the British had kept their promise and helped the Arab separatists after World War I as they promised and given the Arab world its freedom and they could have formed nation states. Now we have a bunch of nations that make no sense (drawn up by British mapmakers who largely had never been there) plagued by factional conflict. We created a power vacuum and ISIS moved in. If Islamic fundamentalism is the mother of ISIS the United States blundering in is the father. American exceptionalism? We did not rebuild Germany and Japan primarily out of the goodness of our hearts. We wanted the Germans to be ready to fight if it came to war with Russia. We wanted Japan safely neutralized so we could use it to fight the Soviets as well. We were not there primarily to help (thought we did that too). What did you think the alternative would be? Annexing Germany and Japan? Keeping them as US territories? Making them states? Also, many many nations throughout history have given the land back to others to govern. Sometimes as puppet states. Sometimes as a demilitarized buffer zone. And lots of other reasons. The United States is not unique in doing that. Nor is our record unblemished. Have you looked at how long we insisted on holding on to the Philippines against their will? We fought a war against a group of revolutionaries trying to get their freedom. They built a republican government with a congress and a President but we shut them down. Might have been better if we had let them go. The thousands of Philippines and Americans that died at the beginning of the Pacific battles of World War II in the futile attempt to hold it and how many died in the Bataan death march and in POW camps. Even when we did give them independence after the war we insisted on using them for military bases. American exceptionalism is largely a myth. I love my country. I think it has the potential to be the greatest moral leader in the world but we seem unable to pull it off. As to our economic exceptionalism that came from being the only large industrialized nation (outside of Canada) not to be heavily ravaged by the Second World War. While every other industrialized nation was bombed and depopulated the United States lost a relatively trivial amount of men in the conflict. They came home to a bolstered wartime economy and were outproducing the world. Of course we ruled the world economically for half a century. Now other nations have recovered and we are not so special anymore. 4
Walden Posted February 8, 2016 Posted February 8, 2016 Funny, and sad, how some of the same posters who defend the armed insurgency in Oregon and lament the death of those armed insurgents would also be the first to defend government officers in the killing of unarmed blacks and the purpose of the Black Lives Matter movement...hhhmmmm
thesometimesaint Posted February 8, 2016 Posted February 8, 2016 I think it is entirely possible to lament the death of an individual while condemning their actions that lead directly to their own death. 1
cinepro Posted February 8, 2016 Posted February 8, 2016 2 hours ago, Walden said: Funny, and sad, how some of the same posters who defend the armed insurgency in Oregon and lament the death of those armed insurgents would also be the first to defend government officers in the killing of unarmed blacks and the purpose of the Black Lives Matter movement...hhhmmmm I can't speak for anyone else, but I think you're dealing in caricatures on both sides of the equation.
Recommended Posts