Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 50 (9179 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,209 Year: 5,466/9,624 Month: 491/323 Week: 131/204 Day: 1/4 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Bundys and the Armed Occupation of a National Wildlife Refuge
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1557 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 196 of 254 (815403)
07-19-2017 11:53 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Tanypteryx
01-12-2016 7:17 PM


Bundys victims of Constitution-violating government tyranny
I hadn't known much about what was going on in that standoff but here Roger Stone lays it out as a clear violation by the government of the rights of citizens according to the Constitution, or specifically, the Federalist Papers. (By the way I couldn't care less what you think of Roger Stone). He also makes it clear that this was a Waco style use of unnecessary force against peacefully assembled citizens. Leftists tend to favor government power and control over citizen freedoms, why? From what I'm hearing the Bundys had a legitimate case that was trampled on by tyrannical government.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Tanypteryx, posted 01-12-2016 7:17 PM Tanypteryx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by vimesey, posted 07-20-2017 1:50 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1557 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 200 of 254 (815426)
07-20-2017 7:49 AM
Reply to: Message 197 by vimesey
07-20-2017 1:50 AM


Re: Bundys victims of Constitution-violating government tyranny
So you object to my using the term "tyranny" for a violation of the Constitutional rights of citizens by the American government. Seems to me that was what the Constitution had in mind when those freedoms were originally crafted. I'm certainly thankful we aren't North Korea, but on the other hand I don't like to see a Constitutional infringement ignored because of a minor semantic objection.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by vimesey, posted 07-20-2017 1:50 AM vimesey has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by jar, posted 07-20-2017 8:04 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 202 by vimesey, posted 07-20-2017 8:54 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1557 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 203 of 254 (815446)
07-20-2017 9:48 AM
Reply to: Message 202 by vimesey
07-20-2017 8:54 AM


Re: Bundys victims of Constitution-violating government tyranny
I don't consider the term "tyranny" to be a problem in this context where government force is used against citizens exercising their freedom of assembly to protest government ownership of land they have no right to, depriving the citizens of its rightful use, making them pay more than they can afford for that rightful use, then confiscating their cattle and arresting some of them. According to Stone they have also been denied normal communication with lawyers and others. I don't think we have to have cruelty on the order of North Korea to use the term "tyranny" for any wrongful use of government force against its citizens. It's not needles under the nails but being jailed for exercising a Constitutional right ought to figure at some degree on the tyranny scale. However, SOME word is needed and if you don't like "tyranny" or "oppression" for heavyhanded government interference with citizen rights, what would you suggest?
Ever since I moved to Nevada almost thirty years ago I've heard how most of the land of the state is wrongfully owned by the federal government -- a whopping 80%. Stone says the Federalist Papers argue for state ownership of the land, and in any case it should be available to ranchers for grazing their cattle. Although if you take a glance at the desert in this state it makes you wonder what on earth there is for a cow to graze on anyway, but that's another issue.
Sometimes I'm not sure if we're still a "liberal democracy" these days -- I'm not exaggerating at all when I say the activities of the Left, in government power and on the streets both, look like tyranny to me more and more every day, tyranny aimed at shutting up the right in particular. It's also tyranny enforced by murder, including an attempt on Stone a few months ago, though of course most of that can't be proved. If you don't see it you are not paying attention to the right sources. I voted for Trump as did so many in the hope that we could at least slow down that encroachment but all that's happened is that they've become more aggressive about it and Trump has caved on too many issues too.
As long as you don't call me PC names like racist and all that I'm not going to yell at you. In fact I may no longer even yell at those who do since as I've been pondering it I've realized God will vindicate me for all the lies against me anyway; vengeance is His, not mine. It just takes me a few days to recover from the wounds.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by vimesey, posted 07-20-2017 8:54 AM vimesey has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by Chiroptera, posted 07-20-2017 2:13 PM Faith has replied
 Message 212 by Taq, posted 07-20-2017 5:19 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1557 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 208 of 254 (815504)
07-20-2017 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 207 by Chiroptera
07-20-2017 2:13 PM


Re: Bundys victims of Constitution-violating government tyranny
Gosh that sounds so REASONable. And if the two situations were equivalent as you make them out to be I guess it would be reasonable. But protests against Trump are a dime a dozen these days, starting with his Presidency barely out of the gate, and most of them are engineered and aimed to destroy him personally far more than they are about any particular issue, some even with bussed-in and paid-for participants, and many become violent. It's hard for me to think of them as legitimate protests though there may be some clueless sincere liberals there too.
Do I really have to point out the difference from the Bundy situation?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by Chiroptera, posted 07-20-2017 2:13 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by Diomedes, posted 07-20-2017 3:13 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 210 by JonF, posted 07-20-2017 3:47 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 211 by Chiroptera, posted 07-20-2017 4:35 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1557 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 215 of 254 (815550)
07-21-2017 9:02 AM


I don't know what all the issues are with respect to public land, but I'm impressed with the fact that the Federalist Papers strongly argue for state and not federal control of the land, which makes the 80% federal ownership of Nevada's land highly suspect. I'm sure nobody would argue that just any use of the land by the public is permissible, there would have to be guidelines, and use for grazing would seem to be high on the list. Then there are questions about fees for use, how much and so on.

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by JonF, posted 07-21-2017 9:23 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1557 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 217 of 254 (815561)
07-21-2017 9:33 AM
Reply to: Message 216 by JonF
07-21-2017 9:23 AM


Since you agree that the Federalist Papers intend to interpret the mind of the Founders, and the law you cite originated when much of the land now within particular states of the USA was undefined Territory, and the Founders should be understood as desiring the states to have sovereignty over their land, then there is plenty of cause for objecting to the current situation. The Bundy protest was a peaceable assembly by everything I've read, not an armed insurrection even if some of them were legally armed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by JonF, posted 07-21-2017 9:23 AM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by Taq, posted 07-21-2017 10:45 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 222 by JonF, posted 07-21-2017 11:15 AM Faith has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024