Bundy group arrested. One dead.

[strappinglad]

An armed insurrection in Oregon eh? Tell me again how many people the Bundy group have shot and/or killed in this insurrection? I wonder just how long the authorities would have waited before hauling the whole Bundy bunch off the land and into jail had they been unarmed? Certainly, the presence of arms within the group greatly increased the danger of deadly conflict as it made hair trigger responses much more probable. The occupation was ill advised, but let's not give too much power by calling it an insurrection. It wasn't the Bundy group who had snipers in the woods at a 'peaceful traffic stop' .

[The Nehor]

8 hours ago, cinepro said:

I can't speak for anyone else, but I think you're dealing in caricatures on both sides of the equation. 

The caricatures are based on reality and I have met some of said caricatures. Not sure if there are any here though.

[thesometimesaint]

1 hour ago, strappinglad said:

An armed insurrection in Oregon eh? Tell me again how many people the Bundy group have shot and/or killed in this insurrection? I wonder just how long the authorities would have waited before hauling the whole Bundy bunch off the land and into jail had they been unarmed? Certainly, the presence of arms within the group greatly increased the danger of deadly conflict as it made hair trigger responses much more probable. The occupation was ill advised, but let's not give too much power by calling it an insurrection. It wasn't the Bundy group who had snipers in the woods at a 'peaceful traffic stop' .

How many people were shot and/or killed in the Whiskey Rebellion? 2 civilians were accidentally killed by government forces , that did not stop President George Washington from leading the military to crush the rebellion. There is nothing peaceful about taking up arms against our government. We have a group of armed and dangerous thugs destroying government property, threatening to kill anyone who tries to stop their escape. What they heck do you expect the government to do? Play nice?

[strappinglad]

Compared to 200 years ago, the authorities have many more choices available to resolve conflict. The Bundy group were able to leave the refuge, why? If the law is going to set up a siege then make it work, nobody in or out with a weapon. It worked in Viking times if we want to talk centuries ago. However, it is all water under the refuge now, so I will give it a rest.

[thesometimesaint]

7 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

Compared to 200 years ago, the authorities have many more choices available to resolve conflict. The Bundy group were able to leave the refuge, why? If the law is going to set up a siege then make it work, nobody in or out with a weapon. It worked in Viking times if we want to talk centuries ago. However, it is all water under the refuge now, so I will give it a rest.

We have a right in this country to peaceably assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances. There is nothing in our constitution that permits unpeaceful activities.

[ERayR]

3 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

We have a right in this country to peaceably assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances. There is nothing in our constitution that permits unpeaceful activities.

 

Just one question.  Who was it that did the shooting?

[cinepro]

4 minutes ago, ERayR said:

 

Just one question.  Who was it that did the shooting?

You may have noticed that the Bundy group had very, very little support among the population in general.  It was an expression of a fringe attitude towards the government (and public lands) that didn't carry weight with almost anyone who was even cursorily familiar with the facts of the matter. 

Likewise, the shooting of Finicum is well within the bounds of what the vast majority of Americans accept as reasonable action by law enforcement.  In addition to trying to run a police roadblock (and almost running over a police officer), he was trying to run away from the police and repeatedly made motions as if he were reaching for a gun in his pocket.  And he actually had a loaded gun in his pocket.  I can't see any reasonable expectation for an alternate course of action from the law enforcement officers. 

So go ahead and try and paint this in a different light; I am deeply fascinated by the absurd alternate reality that these people have created for themselves. 

[thesometimesaint]

27 minutes ago, ERayR said:

Just one question.  Who was it that did the shooting?

Mr. Finicum. The second he tried to run over law enforcement. Attempting to pull a gun on law enforcement sealed his fate.

[cinepro]

46 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Mr. Finicum. The second he tried to run over law enforcement. Attempting to pull a gun on law enforcement sealed his fate.

Exactly.  Even if you are 100% innocent of any other accusation, if you attempt to run over a policeman and then run away (or towards) the police making motions as if you are going to reach into your pocket where they have very good reason to believe you have a gun, you're going to get shot.

Only in the movies can you break dozens of laws (including assaulting the police and endangering hundreds of lives) while trying to evade and escape police and then be totally exonerated once they find out you were innocent of the original charges.

[ERayR]

52 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Mr. Finicum. The second he tried to run over law enforcement. Attempting to pull a gun on law enforcement sealed his fate.

He never fired a shot and by some accounts he didn't even have a gun on him.  The one law enforcement claimed was his was a semi-automatic 9mm hand gun.  He never owned a 9mm semi-auto hand gun.  His preference was revolvers.

[Walden]

29 minutes ago, ERayR said:

He never fired a shot and by some accounts he didn't even have a gun on him.  The one law enforcement claimed was his was a semi-automatic 9mm hand gun.  He never owned a 9mm semi-auto hand gun.  His preference was revolvers.

ErayR, considering your passionate defense of arguably unarmed citizens being gunned down by U.S. law enforcement, I take it that you are also a vocal supporter of Black Lives Matter. Considering your stance, you must have surely been a strong supporter of Treyvon Martin, the unarmed black teen killed by George Zimmerman, and you must have been appalled when Zimmerman was acquitted in that killing. Did you not join the protesters in Ferguson when Michael Brown, an unarmed black man, was gunned down by a white police officer? Like Finicum, neither Martin nor Brown fired a shot, heck, neither Brown nor Martin were even armed, and that's per the police reports. Unlike Finicum, however, these men were not wanted for an armed takeover of a federal building.

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, ERayR said:

He never fired a shot and by some accounts he didn't even have a gun on him.  The one law enforcement claimed was his was a semi-automatic 9mm hand gun.  He never owned a 9mm semi-auto hand gun.  His preference was revolvers.

I don't believe those accounts for a second. So in this armed militia takeover operation he just coincidentally decided to go to this meeting unarmed? Also, how does everyone suddenly know so much about his weapon preferences after the fact when it is needed to attempt to cover for his actions?

Incidentally someone did some homework on the legal records of our brave defenders of democracy: 

A convicted killer: http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/01/oregon_standoff_among_the_prot.html

And much much more: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/02/arrested-oregon-militiamen-criminal-histories-malheur-refuge-occupation

2 hours ago, Walden said:

ErayR, considering your passionate defense of arguably unarmed citizens being gunned down by U.S. law enforcement, I take it that you are also a vocal supporter of Black Lives Matter. Considering your stance, you must have surely been a strong supporter of Treyvon Martin, the unarmed black teen killed by George Zimmerman, and you must have been appalled when Zimmerman was acquitted in that killing. Did you not join the protesters in Ferguson when Michael Brown, an unarmed black man, was gunned down by a white police officer? Like Finicum, neither Martin nor Brown fired a shot, heck, neither Brown nor Martin were even armed, and that's per the police reports. Unlike Finicum, however, these men were not wanted for an armed takeover of a federal building.

I am also curious about this.

[thesometimesaint]

6 hours ago, ERayR said:

He never fired a shot and by some accounts he didn't even have a gun on him.  The one law enforcement claimed was his was a semi-automatic 9mm hand gun.  He never owned a 9mm semi-auto hand gun.  His preference was revolvers.

You don't have to wait to see if they fire a shot before you shot. If you wait you're dead. I've owned two handguns in my entire life, both revolvers, I know how to shoot both types. The best course of action for a long life is to do exactly what law enforcement tells you. Only a fool with a death wish doesn't.

[cinepro]

22 hours ago, ERayR said:

He never fired a shot and by some accounts he didn't even have a gun on him.  The one law enforcement claimed was his was a semi-automatic 9mm hand gun.  He never owned a 9mm semi-auto hand gun.  His preference was revolvers.

I don't recall law enforcement saying he owned a 9mm hand gun.  They merely said he had one on him at the time he was shot.  Maybe he borrowed it from one of the other heavily armed men he was hanging out with?  Maybe someone had left it in the car and he put it in his pocket when things started getting confrontational.  Or maybe he did own one and your unnamed source is wrong.

 

Quote

“On at least two occasions, Finicum reaches his right hand toward a pocket on the left inside portion of his jacket. He did have a loaded 9-millimeter semiautomatic handgun in that pocket,” said Greg Bretzing, the FBI agent in charge of Oregon. Bretzing praised officers for not shooting earlier, when Finicum tried to barrel through.

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2016/01/fbi-lavoy-finicum-shooting-video-oregon/433899/

 

 

It's not law enforcement's job to figure out what, exactly, someone has in their pocket after they rush a roadblock, almost hitting an officer, and then flee on foot, reaching for their pocket.  They don't have to wait to see if they pull a gun, and then try and figure out if it's a real gun or toy gun, and then try to figure out if the person owned the gun or borrowed it, and then try to figure out if the gun is loaded, and then wait to see if the person is going to fire, and then wait to see how their aim is. 

 

Edited February 10, 2016 by cinepro

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

It's not law enforcement's job to figure out what, exactly, someone has in their pocket after they rush a roadblock, almost hitting an officer, and then flee on foot, reaching for their pocket.  They don't have to wait to see if they pull a gun, and then try and figure out if it's a real gun or toy gun, and then try to figure out if the person owned the gun or borrowed it, and then try to figure out if the gun is loaded, and then wait to see if the person is going to fire, and then wait to see how their aim is. 

Yep. You have probably heard that when you have been pulled over not to make any sudden grabbing motions. If this applies when you are pulled over speeding it definitely applies when you are on the run from police, defying law enforcement, and just nearly ran over an officer.

The guy was stupid and he is now dead because of it.

[thesometimesaint]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

It's not law enforcement's job to figure out what, exactly, someone has in their pocket after they rush a roadblock, almost hitting an officer, and then flee on foot, reaching for their pocket.  They don't have to wait to see if they pull a gun, and then try and figure out if it's a real gun or toy gun, and then try to figure out if the person owned the gun or borrowed it, and then try to figure out if the gun is loaded, and then wait to see if the person is going to fire, and then wait to see how their aim is.

The first thing I was taught about firearms is that they are all always loaded unless you personally have examined them and personally know that they are not.

[Avatar4321]

The feds have surrounded the guys remaining

Edited February 12, 2016 by Avatar4321

[Calm]

Four left, shouldn't be too hard.  Surprised they didn' tdo it before.  Guess they were hoping they'd give up:

http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/02/oregon_standoff_fbi_moves_in_o.html

Quote

The live stream that broadcast online what appears to be the last stage of the refuge occupation stopped after more than five hours. The phone feed ended as the occupiers headed to their night camp, preparing to surrender Thursday morning. They said they have a promise that the encircling FBI agents would leave them alone overnight.

 

Edited February 11, 2016 by Calm

[Tacenda]

 

I like how this article was written, "freedumb" and stuff like that.  Cliven in jail with his son now.  

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2016/02/11/cliven-bundy-was-just-arrested-as-he-tried-to-join-terrorists-in-oregon/

[Tacenda]

This one is easier to read.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2016/02/11/nevada-rancher-cliven-bundy-arrested/80219266/

[Darren10]

On ‎2‎/‎6‎/‎2016 at 11:01 PM, The Nehor said:

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.

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.

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.  

Historically the states have held far more power than the federal government. It's been in the past hundred years or so that that has turned around. So by that alone you can account for abuses by them more so than the federal government. That is until the federal government surpassed the states in power.

 

You correctly cite slavery as an example of governmental abuse at the state level. By extension that includes civil rights. No one argues that ending slavery was good. No one argues that defending civil rights is good. But the federal government in this good has not exactly done no wrong. Take the latter example first. While the federal government helped put an end to Jim Crow laws today they use the very power they exerted to end those laws to prevent states to make sure non citizens do not vote. In Harris County, where I live, alone there were thousands of non verifiable people registered to vote. You can't suddenly announce the need to reregister everyone to vote so the best solution is to provide ID when voting. I do not know of a single person denied a vote because of a lack of ID at the booth. Legal ID can easily be obtained by anyone, particularly one that is used to vote. But, in this last election cycle, the federal government stepped in \and prohibited states from issuing voter ID laws. The federal government simply used civil rights laws designed to protect minorities from being denied their right to vote in order to prevent states from making sure non citizens do not vote. Harris County is a small example of non citizens voting. Orange country has a rampant problem with it.

As for slavery, it's a dark stain on US history and the federal government did good, no Abraham Lincoln did good, in ending it. But he himself was quite haunted by the overall effects his Gettysburg Address had on the nation as by freeing the slaves by creed it went directly against the 10th Amendment and his personal word that he was fighting the war to free the slaves. But the morality behind guaranteeing blacks to be free from slavery after they fought to preserve the Union was too great to ignore. Lincoln made the right decision. But while we have no more legal slavery,

As for the Mormons, if you think that politicians today will or will not decide on matters according to the support or opposition they'll get from the voters of any given state then I have no idea where you are living. Same goes for slavery. You don't think that politics are involved in the decisions to deport or not deport illegal immigrants, including those guilty of violent crimes? Just as interest to support slavery and use states rights to keep it legal was heavily politically driven, so are immigration laws, homosexual rights, voting rights, etc. enforced or not in large part according to political interest. Not enforcing DOMA by the same party that made it law was done because not enforcing it brought in votes and political support including donations. Making everyone buy insurance was done in large part to enhance political power and supported in large part because specific insurance companies stood to gain trillions from its passage. Opposition to these things have been far less than it should be in the name of getting the votes of the supporters. You yourself have expressed ideas that I would say run counter to the 2nd Amendment. So, if you were in charge of the federal government, you'd enforce that law as is today? My guess is that you'd restrict it and that's not special interest? That's not being an elitist?

No doubt the EPA has done some good. No one disputed that here on this thread. but how many have been held accountable for contaminating the Colorado River? They did so at least twice? A state or corporation would be held accountable by the EPA for doing the same thing. The EPA was created by the social conservative Richard Nixon. While it has done good, it has gone way beyond its scope. I say it's better not to have it. States may regulated the environment as they see fit. California did just that before the EPA, simply continue that line of progress. 

American exceptionalism is no myth. It's a reality that has comer to fruition based on individual freedom. No nation has been freer than the US and thus has not prospered and much as that of the US. Geography plays its advantages in any nation. Canada needs not spend much at all on military since the US does and they know the US would not tolerate Canada being invaded by as foreign nation. Japan was traditionally protected by China by virtual of being an island. By being an island they also created a significant naval power. They even once destroyed the Russian navy. These same effects could be seen in England. Every country has advantages and disadvantages with geography and so it is a nation's decisions which decide outcome, not external factors such as geography. The united States could not have been the industrial power it was during World War II were it not for the federal government significantly easing off industrial regulations lead by Franklin Delanore Roosevelt. Under him, the income tax was nearly 100% and industries were kept with a very watchful eye. Having to enter into the European war, FDR needed the industry he controlled to produce the goods needed. By focusing internationally he had to ease up domestically. The result was creating the economic powerhouse the United States is today.

State control versus more individual freedom.

http://la.indymedia.org/uploads/2013/12/001-north-korea-dprk-vs-south-korea-npa.jpgmid.jpg

The Cold War was still way off in 1945 but no doubt it influenced the US as to which countries it supported and to what extent. But the US went to work immediately to rebuild Germany and Japan.  initial reason to keep military presence in those areas was to thwart any resurgence of militant governing powers. That lead into those areas being strategic in the Cold War. But, nevertheless, the US worked to rebuild those nations as democracies and nothing less.

"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."

How in the world are polar bears endangered? No propagandizing to keep the money flowing to that cause?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/23/polar-bears-falling-to-th_n_367693.html

Iraq's election was no shame. It was a modern day miracle. You want to tell people with purple fingers that what they did was a s sham? Iraq was doomed to fail once the US decided to leave.

Even in your own arguments the presence of the US military have caused democracies to form. Not that it is flawless but even India was forced to accept Democracy by England and when they became independent from England they chose to continue it. And their independence was after decades long occupation, not just a mere ten years. Even after the abuses the Indian people suffered under British rule, they embraced Democracy and even used their democratic laws placed on them by Britian to fight the British.

"If Islamic fundamentalism is the mother of ISIS the United States blundering in is the father."

Agreed. our leaving Iraq was a blunder.

 

[Darren10]

On ‎2‎/‎9‎/‎2016 at 4:26 PM, Walden said:

ErayR, considering your passionate defense of arguably unarmed citizens being gunned down by U.S. law enforcement, I take it that you are also a vocal supporter of Black Lives Matter. Considering your stance, you must have surely been a strong supporter of Treyvon Martin, the unarmed black teen killed by George Zimmerman, and you must have been appalled when Zimmerman was acquitted in that killing. Did you not join the protesters in Ferguson when Michael Brown, an unarmed black man, was gunned down by a white police officer? Like Finicum, neither Martin nor Brown fired a shot, heck, neither Brown nor Martin were even armed, and that's per the police reports. Unlike Finicum, however, these men were not wanted for an armed takeover of a federal building.

"ErayR, considering your passionate defense of arguably unarmed citizens being gunned down by U.S. law enforcement, I take it that you are also a vocal supporter of Black Lives Matter. Considering your stance, you must have surely been a strong supporter of Treyvon Martin, the unarmed black teen killed by George Zimmerman, and you must have been appalled when Zimmerman was acquitted in that killing."

 

Treyvon Martin attacked George Zimmerman and beat him bloody on the concrete before Zimmerman shot him. What are you talking about?

Michael Brown attacked a policed officer, beat him bloody, and came very close to shooting that officer with the officer's own gun. What are you talking about?

[Darren10]

On ‎2‎/‎9‎/‎2016 at 3:36 PM, ERayR said:

He never fired a shot and by some accounts he didn't even have a gun on him.  The one law enforcement claimed was his was a semi-automatic 9mm hand gun.  He never owned a 9mm semi-auto hand gun.  His preference was revolvers.

Shooting Finicum was 100% justified.

[Darren10]

On ‎2‎/‎9‎/‎2016 at 4:26 PM, Walden said:

ErayR, considering your passionate defense of arguably unarmed citizens being gunned down by U.S. law enforcement, I take it that you are also a vocal supporter of Black Lives Matter. Considering your stance, you must have surely been a strong supporter of Treyvon Martin, the unarmed black teen killed by George Zimmerman, and you must have been appalled when Zimmerman was acquitted in that killing. Did you not join the protesters in Ferguson when Michael Brown, an unarmed black man, was gunned down by a white police officer? Like Finicum, neither Martin nor Brown fired a shot, heck, neither Brown nor Martin were even armed, and that's per the police reports. Unlike Finicum, however, these men were not wanted for an armed takeover of a federal building.

Come to think about it, you may have a good point if you made this post why I think you made it after rereading it.

[thesometimesaint]

2 hours ago, Darren10 said:

Historically the states have held far more power than the federal government. It's been in the past hundred years or so that that has turned around. So by that alone you can account for abuses by them more so than the federal government. That is until the federal government surpassed the states in power.

 

You correctly cite slavery as an example of governmental abuse at the state level. By extension that includes civil rights. No one argues that ending slavery was good. No one argues that defending civil rights is good. But the federal government in this good has not exactly done no wrong. Take the latter example first. While the federal government helped put an end to Jim Crow laws today they use the very power they exerted to end those laws to prevent states to make sure non citizens do not vote. In Harris County, where I live, alone there were thousands of non verifiable people registered to vote. You can't suddenly announce the need to reregister everyone to vote so the best solution is to provide ID when voting. I do not know of a single person denied a vote because of a lack of ID at the booth. Legal ID can easily be obtained by anyone, particularly one that is used to vote. But, in this last election cycle, the federal government stepped in \and prohibited states from issuing voter ID laws. The federal government simply used civil rights laws designed to protect minorities from being denied their right to vote in order to prevent states from making sure non citizens do not vote. Harris County is a small example of non citizens voting. Orange country has a rampant problem with it.

As for slavery, it's a dark stain on US history and the federal government did good, no Abraham Lincoln did good, in ending it. But he himself was quite haunted by the overall effects his Gettysburg Address had on the nation as by freeing the slaves by creed it went directly against the 10th Amendment and his personal word that he was fighting the war to free the slaves. But the morality behind guaranteeing blacks to be free from slavery after they fought to preserve the Union was too great to ignore. Lincoln made the right decision. But while we have no more legal slavery,

As for the Mormons, if you think that politicians today will or will not decide on matters according to the support or opposition they'll get from the voters of any given state then I have no idea where you are living. Same goes for slavery. You don't think that politics are involved in the decisions to deport or not deport illegal immigrants, including those guilty of violent crimes? Just as interest to support slavery and use states rights to keep it legal was heavily politically driven, so are immigration laws, homosexual rights, voting rights, etc. enforced or not in large part according to political interest. Not enforcing DOMA by the same party that made it law was done because not enforcing it brought in votes and political support including donations. Making everyone buy insurance was done in large part to enhance political power and supported in large part because specific insurance companies stood to gain trillions from its passage. Opposition to these things have been far less than it should be in the name of getting the votes of the supporters. You yourself have expressed ideas that I would say run counter to the 2nd Amendment. So, if you were in charge of the federal government, you'd enforce that law as is today? My guess is that you'd restrict it and that's not special interest? That's not being an elitist?

No doubt the EPA has done some good. No one disputed that here on this thread. but how many have been held accountable for contaminating the Colorado River? They did so at least twice? A state or corporation would be held accountable by the EPA for doing the same thing. The EPA was created by the social conservative Richard Nixon. While it has done good, it has gone way beyond its scope. I say it's better not to have it. States may regulated the environment as they see fit. California did just that before the EPA, simply continue that line of progress. 

American exceptionalism is no myth. It's a reality that has comer to fruition based on individual freedom. No nation has been freer than the US and thus has not prospered and much as that of the US. Geography plays its advantages in any nation. Canada needs not spend much at all on military since the US does and they know the US would not tolerate Canada being invaded by as foreign nation. Japan was traditionally protected by China by virtual of being an island. By being an island they also created a significant naval power. They even once destroyed the Russian navy. These same effects could be seen in England. Every country has advantages and disadvantages with geography and so it is a nation's decisions which decide outcome, not external factors such as geography. The united States could not have been the industrial power it was during World War II were it not for the federal government significantly easing off industrial regulations lead by Franklin Delanore Roosevelt. Under him, the income tax was nearly 100% and industries were kept with a very watchful eye. Having to enter into the European war, FDR needed the industry he controlled to produce the goods needed. By focusing internationally he had to ease up domestically. The result was creating the economic powerhouse the United States is today.

State control versus more individual freedom.

http://la.indymedia.org/uploads/2013/12/001-north-korea-dprk-vs-south-korea-npa.jpgmid.jpg

The Cold War was still way off in 1945 but no doubt it influenced the US as to which countries it supported and to what extent. But the US went to work immediately to rebuild Germany and Japan.  initial reason to keep military presence in those areas was to thwart any resurgence of militant governing powers. That lead into those areas being strategic in the Cold War. But, nevertheless, the US worked to rebuild those nations as democracies and nothing less.

"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."

How in the world are polar bears endangered? No propagandizing to keep the money flowing to that cause?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/23/polar-bears-falling-to-th_n_367693.html

Iraq's election was no shame. It was a modern day miracle. You want to tell people with purple fingers that what they did was a s sham? Iraq was doomed to fail once the US decided to leave.

Even in your own arguments the presence of the US military have caused democracies to form. Not that it is flawless but even India was forced to accept Democracy by England and when they became independent from England they chose to continue it. And their independence was after decades long occupation, not just a mere ten years. Even after the abuses the Indian people suffered under British rule, they embraced Democracy and even used their democratic laws placed on them by Britian to fight the British.

"If Islamic fundamentalism is the mother of ISIS the United States blundering in is the father."

Agreed. our leaving Iraq was a blunder.

 

Shotgunning isn't a particularly effective means of discussion. Please one subject at a time.