|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On January 06 2016 01:22 Doublemint wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2016 01:18 Mohdoo wrote:
If Rubio doesn't win one of the first few states, I think it's officially Cruz vs Trump. It's also interesting to see the establishment can't wrap it's head around how much less effective TV ads are nowadays. yeah but then it's basically lights out for a republican presidency imho. they are not appealing at all to independents and/or "the middle". not withstanding their awful tax plans lol. even the economist says the tax plans are out of this world and financially not feasible.
Well this confrontation had been coming for a long time. The republican party has used every divisive tactic they can brew and they will reap what they sow.
|
On January 06 2016 01:18 Mohdoo wrote:
If Rubio doesn't win one of the first few states, I think it's officially Cruz vs Trump. It's also interesting to see the establishment can't wrap it's head around how much less effective TV ads are nowadays.
The problem is bigger than that. Trump's voting bloc isn't going to abandon him for establishment candidates. Even if an ad campaign successfully hurts Trump it won't be Rubio or Jeb getting a windfall, it'll be Cruz.
|
On January 06 2016 02:20 Seuss wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2016 01:18 Mohdoo wrote:
If Rubio doesn't win one of the first few states, I think it's officially Cruz vs Trump. It's also interesting to see the establishment can't wrap it's head around how much less effective TV ads are nowadays. The problem is bigger than that. Trump's voting bloc isn't going to abandon him for establishment candidates. Even if an ad campaign successfully hurts Trump it won't be Rubio or Jeb getting a windfall, it'll be Cruz.
This is my thought as well. Either Rubio somehow takes the whole pie or Cruz wins. At this point I consider Cruz the clear favorite with Trump having the potential to upset. Rubio is gonna take some kinda miracle, but I still can not swallow the idea that the establishment will let Cruz or Trump win. They'll take Cruz over Trump any day of the week, though.
|
On January 05 2016 13:34 OuchyDathurts wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2016 13:12 cLutZ wrote:On January 05 2016 12:46 Mohdoo wrote:
The fact that these guys are guaranteed going to prison makes me think they may actually make a violent last stand. Their lives are basically over at this point. Either they go down fighting or spend their lives in prison. I've been trying to impress this upon people in this thread for quite a while...to little effect: If you aren't willing to kill someone over something, you don't actually think there should be a law about it. ....no one agrees with that line of thinking because it's stupid as hell. It's completely devoid of any rational or nuanced thought. You're just taking things to their extremes, its the worst case of black or white possible. Unless you're willing to KILL for something it shouldn't be against the law. Hmm, very intelligent and thought provoking. I think reading someone else's mail should be against the law. Makes sense, it's their property, its private correspondence meant for them, it could contain privileged and sensitive information, no logical person would say otherwise. If someone opens something in my mail am I willing to go and shoot them? Do I want the police to send the SWAT team to kill them? No, that's fucking retarded. Smart people see nuance, they're able to evaluate a situation and see shades of grey. They don't just instantly distill everything down to "IF YOU AREN'T WILLING TO KILL....". Stealing should be illegal, not willing to shoot someone over the money in my wallet or the TV on my wall. Not every situation turns into kill or let it go unless you're a psychopath. This is the same bullshit line of argument that is "All taxation is theft by threat of death!". It's a joke made up by the feeble minded to persuade others with feeble minds. No one takes that seriously because its not serious.
Its not what you want to be the action when something is done illegally, its what you have to be willing to do if someone persists is doing that illegal thing, and continues to resist your efforts to prevent them from doing it.
Take your mail example. You find someone is stealing mail. You send an officer over, you take them to court, convict them and issue a fine. He doesn't pay the fine and continues to steal mail. Now obviously you need to imprison this person. But, he does not believe he is in the wrong and resists arrest. Then he resists the prison officials. And thus he is in solitary. That is this person's best case scenario, because at all the levels of interaction there is a high likelihood of escalation into a fatal incident.
Same with our friend Mr. Bundy. He has decided to occupy some federal outpost. This is illegal. If he persists in occupying they will eventually have to use force to get him out, whether that force is dehydration or starvation or guns matters, but not to the extent I think you seem to believe it does, because if he persists in resisting he will die as a result.
That's all I am saying. And when it comes to something like theft, I am perfectly comfortable with the notion that if someone persists in stealing mail and resists all efforts to prevent his theft, he will come to a bad end. I am, admittedly less comfortable over that happening to people who attempt to get around cigarette taxes or refuse to pay fees related to cattle or whatever.
Also, while these Hammonds aren't the persecuted class they seem to think they are, I would impress upon you that the bullying tactics they accuse BLM of are very real, and are the reason they are one of the last holdouts that own property in the area. And its likely that had they not been such wackadoos, they would be made to look like wackadoos, and criminals. Even people who do not live near/have to traverse federal land commit several felonies a week, without their knowledge. And all a prosecutor has to do is pick a person, then scour the Federal Code for the crime.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
this is like a zombie movie for the gop lol
|
CHICAGO — A top city of Chicago lawyer stepped down after a federal judge accused him of hiding evidence in a fatal police shooting, the latest allegation of wrongdoing amid ongoing scrutiny of how the city deals with such cases.
Separately, the city agency that investigates police shootings vowed greater transparency, saying Monday that it would start divulging some details of active cases as it tries to bolster public confidence in the process.
Since November, Chicago has been dealing with fallout from the release of a video showing a white officer fatally shooting black teenager Laquan McDonald. The video prompted protests and led to a wide-ranging civil rights investigation of the entire police department by the U.S. Department of Justice.
Monday’s 72-page opinion from U.S. District Judge Edmond Chang was part of a civil lawsuit brought by relatives of Darius Pinex, a black man, who was shot and killed by police during a 2011 traffic stop in Chicago.
The officers, Raoul Mosqueda and Gildardo Sierra, said they opened fire as Pinex refused orders and put his car in reverse. The officers had said they stopped Pinex because his car matched a description they heard on their police radio of a car suspected of involvement in an earlier shooting. But records emerged after the trial began that officers weren’t listening to the channel broadcasting the radio traffic about the suspect’s car. The judge said a city lawyer “intentionally concealed” that evidence.
The judge on Monday tossed a jury’s finding in April that the police shooting was justified, ordered a new trial and instructed the city to pay attorney’s fees to the plaintiffs.
Source
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On January 05 2016 13:12 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2016 12:46 Mohdoo wrote:
The fact that these guys are guaranteed going to prison makes me think they may actually make a violent last stand. Their lives are basically over at this point. Either they go down fighting or spend their lives in prison. I've been trying to impress this upon people in this thread for quite a while...to little effect: If you aren't willing to kill someone over something, you don't actually think there should be a law about it.
tried to read this several times, headache intensified. come again?
|
On January 06 2016 02:36 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2016 13:34 OuchyDathurts wrote:On January 05 2016 13:12 cLutZ wrote:On January 05 2016 12:46 Mohdoo wrote:
The fact that these guys are guaranteed going to prison makes me think they may actually make a violent last stand. Their lives are basically over at this point. Either they go down fighting or spend their lives in prison. I've been trying to impress this upon people in this thread for quite a while...to little effect: If you aren't willing to kill someone over something, you don't actually think there should be a law about it. ....no one agrees with that line of thinking because it's stupid as hell. It's completely devoid of any rational or nuanced thought. You're just taking things to their extremes, its the worst case of black or white possible. Unless you're willing to KILL for something it shouldn't be against the law. Hmm, very intelligent and thought provoking. I think reading someone else's mail should be against the law. Makes sense, it's their property, its private correspondence meant for them, it could contain privileged and sensitive information, no logical person would say otherwise. If someone opens something in my mail am I willing to go and shoot them? Do I want the police to send the SWAT team to kill them? No, that's fucking retarded. Smart people see nuance, they're able to evaluate a situation and see shades of grey. They don't just instantly distill everything down to "IF YOU AREN'T WILLING TO KILL....". Stealing should be illegal, not willing to shoot someone over the money in my wallet or the TV on my wall. Not every situation turns into kill or let it go unless you're a psychopath. This is the same bullshit line of argument that is "All taxation is theft by threat of death!". It's a joke made up by the feeble minded to persuade others with feeble minds. No one takes that seriously because its not serious. Its not what you want to be the action when something is done illegally, its what you have to be willing to do if someone persists is doing that illegal thing, and continues to resist your efforts to prevent them from doing it. Take your mail example. You find someone is stealing mail. You send an officer over, you take them to court, convict them and issue a fine. He doesn't pay the fine and continues to steal mail. Now obviously you need to imprison this person. But, he does not believe he is in the wrong and resists arrest. Then he resists the prison officials. And thus he is in solitary. That is this person's best case scenario, because at all the levels of interaction there is a high likelihood of escalation into a fatal incident. Same with our friend Mr. Bundy. He has decided to occupy some federal outpost. This is illegal. If he persists in occupying they will eventually have to use force to get him out, whether that force is dehydration or starvation or guns matters, but not to the extent I think you seem to believe it does, because if he persists in resisting he will die as a result. That's all I am saying. And when it comes to something like theft, I am perfectly comfortable with the notion that if someone persists in stealing mail and resists all efforts to prevent his theft, he will come to a bad end. I am, admittedly less comfortable over that happening to people who attempt to get around cigarette taxes or refuse to pay fees related to cattle or whatever. Also, while these Hammonds aren't the persecuted class they seem to think they are, I would impress upon you that the bullying tactics they accuse BLM of are very real, and are the reason they are one of the last holdouts that own property in the area. And its likely that had they not been such wackadoos, they would be made to look like wackadoos, and criminals. Even people who do not live near/have to traverse federal land commit several felonies a week, without their knowledge. And all a prosecutor has to do is pick a person, then scour the Federal Code for the crime.
You're still boiling things down to complete nonsense to make a point devoid of value. It's something someone from Jr. High would come up with and think they're some sort of worldly intellectual. Every crime if you take it to it's most extreme nonsensical conclusion ends with someone dying! The government is an evil death machine you see! All roads....once traveled long enough....no matter how stupid lead here!
Someone steals mail, say they get 2 years every time. They continue to do it because they feel they're in the right. 2 years sentence, repeat offense, 2 year sentence, repeat offense, on and on till he does it so long he ends up dying in jail at 90 years old. You've just killed that man over reading someones mail! No, that man was a fucking idiot that killed himself. No one is responsible for his death but himself, not another single soul. Taking every crime to an extreme, no matter how outlandish, is stupid lazy thinking to try and pin someone besides the person (usually the gubment) as the devil. It's not even lazy thinking, it's nonthinking.
Are there a lot of things that shouldn't be a crime? Sure are. We've got a lot of laws that shouldn't be a thing. We've got a lot of things that should be against the law that aren't. We've got a lot of sentences that are fucked, too long for some silly shit, some that are too short for how devastating the crime actually is. The entire law enforcement, criminal justice, and corrections system (that doesn't actually correct much) is a cluster fuck that needs addressing in MASSIVE ways that they honestly probably never will be. The government oversteps its bounds sometimes on both sides, you'll get no argument from me on that. But this line of thinking serves absolutely no purpose, it doesn't address any real problems as its not based in reality.
If people would come to the table from a position that isn't complete nonsense maybe they'll find people more apt to listen to what they're saying and discuss. The thought that all laws at the end of the day result in a death sentence is a nonsense position to start from.
|
On January 06 2016 03:13 OuchyDathurts wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2016 02:36 cLutZ wrote:On January 05 2016 13:34 OuchyDathurts wrote:On January 05 2016 13:12 cLutZ wrote:On January 05 2016 12:46 Mohdoo wrote:
The fact that these guys are guaranteed going to prison makes me think they may actually make a violent last stand. Their lives are basically over at this point. Either they go down fighting or spend their lives in prison. I've been trying to impress this upon people in this thread for quite a while...to little effect: If you aren't willing to kill someone over something, you don't actually think there should be a law about it. ....no one agrees with that line of thinking because it's stupid as hell. It's completely devoid of any rational or nuanced thought. You're just taking things to their extremes, its the worst case of black or white possible. Unless you're willing to KILL for something it shouldn't be against the law. Hmm, very intelligent and thought provoking. I think reading someone else's mail should be against the law. Makes sense, it's their property, its private correspondence meant for them, it could contain privileged and sensitive information, no logical person would say otherwise. If someone opens something in my mail am I willing to go and shoot them? Do I want the police to send the SWAT team to kill them? No, that's fucking retarded. Smart people see nuance, they're able to evaluate a situation and see shades of grey. They don't just instantly distill everything down to "IF YOU AREN'T WILLING TO KILL....". Stealing should be illegal, not willing to shoot someone over the money in my wallet or the TV on my wall. Not every situation turns into kill or let it go unless you're a psychopath. This is the same bullshit line of argument that is "All taxation is theft by threat of death!". It's a joke made up by the feeble minded to persuade others with feeble minds. No one takes that seriously because its not serious. Its not what you want to be the action when something is done illegally, its what you have to be willing to do if someone persists is doing that illegal thing, and continues to resist your efforts to prevent them from doing it. Take your mail example. You find someone is stealing mail. You send an officer over, you take them to court, convict them and issue a fine. He doesn't pay the fine and continues to steal mail. Now obviously you need to imprison this person. But, he does not believe he is in the wrong and resists arrest. Then he resists the prison officials. And thus he is in solitary. That is this person's best case scenario, because at all the levels of interaction there is a high likelihood of escalation into a fatal incident. Same with our friend Mr. Bundy. He has decided to occupy some federal outpost. This is illegal. If he persists in occupying they will eventually have to use force to get him out, whether that force is dehydration or starvation or guns matters, but not to the extent I think you seem to believe it does, because if he persists in resisting he will die as a result. That's all I am saying. And when it comes to something like theft, I am perfectly comfortable with the notion that if someone persists in stealing mail and resists all efforts to prevent his theft, he will come to a bad end. I am, admittedly less comfortable over that happening to people who attempt to get around cigarette taxes or refuse to pay fees related to cattle or whatever. Also, while these Hammonds aren't the persecuted class they seem to think they are, I would impress upon you that the bullying tactics they accuse BLM of are very real, and are the reason they are one of the last holdouts that own property in the area. And its likely that had they not been such wackadoos, they would be made to look like wackadoos, and criminals. Even people who do not live near/have to traverse federal land commit several felonies a week, without their knowledge. And all a prosecutor has to do is pick a person, then scour the Federal Code for the crime. If people would come to the table from a position that isn't complete nonsense maybe they'll find people more apt to listen to what they're saying and discuss. The thought that all laws at the end of the day result in a death sentence is a nonsense position to start from.
faith in humanity restored. thank you.
|
On January 06 2016 03:16 Doublemint wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2016 03:13 OuchyDathurts wrote:On January 06 2016 02:36 cLutZ wrote:On January 05 2016 13:34 OuchyDathurts wrote:On January 05 2016 13:12 cLutZ wrote:On January 05 2016 12:46 Mohdoo wrote:
The fact that these guys are guaranteed going to prison makes me think they may actually make a violent last stand. Their lives are basically over at this point. Either they go down fighting or spend their lives in prison. I've been trying to impress this upon people in this thread for quite a while...to little effect: If you aren't willing to kill someone over something, you don't actually think there should be a law about it. ....no one agrees with that line of thinking because it's stupid as hell. It's completely devoid of any rational or nuanced thought. You're just taking things to their extremes, its the worst case of black or white possible. Unless you're willing to KILL for something it shouldn't be against the law. Hmm, very intelligent and thought provoking. I think reading someone else's mail should be against the law. Makes sense, it's their property, its private correspondence meant for them, it could contain privileged and sensitive information, no logical person would say otherwise. If someone opens something in my mail am I willing to go and shoot them? Do I want the police to send the SWAT team to kill them? No, that's fucking retarded. Smart people see nuance, they're able to evaluate a situation and see shades of grey. They don't just instantly distill everything down to "IF YOU AREN'T WILLING TO KILL....". Stealing should be illegal, not willing to shoot someone over the money in my wallet or the TV on my wall. Not every situation turns into kill or let it go unless you're a psychopath. This is the same bullshit line of argument that is "All taxation is theft by threat of death!". It's a joke made up by the feeble minded to persuade others with feeble minds. No one takes that seriously because its not serious. Its not what you want to be the action when something is done illegally, its what you have to be willing to do if someone persists is doing that illegal thing, and continues to resist your efforts to prevent them from doing it. Take your mail example. You find someone is stealing mail. You send an officer over, you take them to court, convict them and issue a fine. He doesn't pay the fine and continues to steal mail. Now obviously you need to imprison this person. But, he does not believe he is in the wrong and resists arrest. Then he resists the prison officials. And thus he is in solitary. That is this person's best case scenario, because at all the levels of interaction there is a high likelihood of escalation into a fatal incident. Same with our friend Mr. Bundy. He has decided to occupy some federal outpost. This is illegal. If he persists in occupying they will eventually have to use force to get him out, whether that force is dehydration or starvation or guns matters, but not to the extent I think you seem to believe it does, because if he persists in resisting he will die as a result. That's all I am saying. And when it comes to something like theft, I am perfectly comfortable with the notion that if someone persists in stealing mail and resists all efforts to prevent his theft, he will come to a bad end. I am, admittedly less comfortable over that happening to people who attempt to get around cigarette taxes or refuse to pay fees related to cattle or whatever. Also, while these Hammonds aren't the persecuted class they seem to think they are, I would impress upon you that the bullying tactics they accuse BLM of are very real, and are the reason they are one of the last holdouts that own property in the area. And its likely that had they not been such wackadoos, they would be made to look like wackadoos, and criminals. Even people who do not live near/have to traverse federal land commit several felonies a week, without their knowledge. And all a prosecutor has to do is pick a person, then scour the Federal Code for the crime. If people would come to the table from a position that isn't complete nonsense maybe they'll find people more apt to listen to what they're saying and discuss. The thought that all laws at the end of the day result in a death sentence is a nonsense position to start from. faith in humanity restored. thank you.
Christ, I never thought I'd be someone to restore someone's faith in humanity. I think that actually ruined my faith in humanity lol. If that's the case the world is pretty fucked 
|
On January 06 2016 02:20 Seuss wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2016 01:18 Mohdoo wrote:
If Rubio doesn't win one of the first few states, I think it's officially Cruz vs Trump. It's also interesting to see the establishment can't wrap it's head around how much less effective TV ads are nowadays. The problem is bigger than that. Trump's voting bloc isn't going to abandon him for establishment candidates. Even if an ad campaign successfully hurts Trump it won't be Rubio or Jeb getting a windfall, it'll be Cruz.
I think the establishment's goal is to drive Trump out of the race or marginalize him by crushing his "I'm a winner" narrative immediately after Super Tuesday. Trump won't waste his money if he's clearly getting battered. Then they can bring all cannons to bear on Cruz and consolidate behind whichever establishment candidate remains. It's not like any substantial amount of states will have voted at that point and a Rubio/Bush/Christie win is not inconceivable at that point, a la McCain's win in 2008.
|
On January 06 2016 03:22 OuchyDathurts wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2016 03:16 Doublemint wrote:On January 06 2016 03:13 OuchyDathurts wrote:On January 06 2016 02:36 cLutZ wrote:On January 05 2016 13:34 OuchyDathurts wrote:On January 05 2016 13:12 cLutZ wrote:On January 05 2016 12:46 Mohdoo wrote:
The fact that these guys are guaranteed going to prison makes me think they may actually make a violent last stand. Their lives are basically over at this point. Either they go down fighting or spend their lives in prison. I've been trying to impress this upon people in this thread for quite a while...to little effect: If you aren't willing to kill someone over something, you don't actually think there should be a law about it. ....no one agrees with that line of thinking because it's stupid as hell. It's completely devoid of any rational or nuanced thought. You're just taking things to their extremes, its the worst case of black or white possible. Unless you're willing to KILL for something it shouldn't be against the law. Hmm, very intelligent and thought provoking. I think reading someone else's mail should be against the law. Makes sense, it's their property, its private correspondence meant for them, it could contain privileged and sensitive information, no logical person would say otherwise. If someone opens something in my mail am I willing to go and shoot them? Do I want the police to send the SWAT team to kill them? No, that's fucking retarded. Smart people see nuance, they're able to evaluate a situation and see shades of grey. They don't just instantly distill everything down to "IF YOU AREN'T WILLING TO KILL....". Stealing should be illegal, not willing to shoot someone over the money in my wallet or the TV on my wall. Not every situation turns into kill or let it go unless you're a psychopath. This is the same bullshit line of argument that is "All taxation is theft by threat of death!". It's a joke made up by the feeble minded to persuade others with feeble minds. No one takes that seriously because its not serious. Its not what you want to be the action when something is done illegally, its what you have to be willing to do if someone persists is doing that illegal thing, and continues to resist your efforts to prevent them from doing it. Take your mail example. You find someone is stealing mail. You send an officer over, you take them to court, convict them and issue a fine. He doesn't pay the fine and continues to steal mail. Now obviously you need to imprison this person. But, he does not believe he is in the wrong and resists arrest. Then he resists the prison officials. And thus he is in solitary. That is this person's best case scenario, because at all the levels of interaction there is a high likelihood of escalation into a fatal incident. Same with our friend Mr. Bundy. He has decided to occupy some federal outpost. This is illegal. If he persists in occupying they will eventually have to use force to get him out, whether that force is dehydration or starvation or guns matters, but not to the extent I think you seem to believe it does, because if he persists in resisting he will die as a result. That's all I am saying. And when it comes to something like theft, I am perfectly comfortable with the notion that if someone persists in stealing mail and resists all efforts to prevent his theft, he will come to a bad end. I am, admittedly less comfortable over that happening to people who attempt to get around cigarette taxes or refuse to pay fees related to cattle or whatever. Also, while these Hammonds aren't the persecuted class they seem to think they are, I would impress upon you that the bullying tactics they accuse BLM of are very real, and are the reason they are one of the last holdouts that own property in the area. And its likely that had they not been such wackadoos, they would be made to look like wackadoos, and criminals. Even people who do not live near/have to traverse federal land commit several felonies a week, without their knowledge. And all a prosecutor has to do is pick a person, then scour the Federal Code for the crime. If people would come to the table from a position that isn't complete nonsense maybe they'll find people more apt to listen to what they're saying and discuss. The thought that all laws at the end of the day result in a death sentence is a nonsense position to start from. faith in humanity restored. thank you. Christ, I never thought I'd be someone to restore someone's faith in humanity. I think that actually ruined my faith in humanity lol. If that's the case the world is pretty fucked
yes it is, but it's our fucked up world :p
and thanks, you just described why depression among more or less intelligent people is a thing lol.
|
On January 06 2016 02:36 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2016 13:34 OuchyDathurts wrote:On January 05 2016 13:12 cLutZ wrote:On January 05 2016 12:46 Mohdoo wrote:
The fact that these guys are guaranteed going to prison makes me think they may actually make a violent last stand. Their lives are basically over at this point. Either they go down fighting or spend their lives in prison. I've been trying to impress this upon people in this thread for quite a while...to little effect: If you aren't willing to kill someone over something, you don't actually think there should be a law about it. ....no one agrees with that line of thinking because it's stupid as hell. It's completely devoid of any rational or nuanced thought. You're just taking things to their extremes, its the worst case of black or white possible. Unless you're willing to KILL for something it shouldn't be against the law. Hmm, very intelligent and thought provoking. I think reading someone else's mail should be against the law. Makes sense, it's their property, its private correspondence meant for them, it could contain privileged and sensitive information, no logical person would say otherwise. If someone opens something in my mail am I willing to go and shoot them? Do I want the police to send the SWAT team to kill them? No, that's fucking retarded. Smart people see nuance, they're able to evaluate a situation and see shades of grey. They don't just instantly distill everything down to "IF YOU AREN'T WILLING TO KILL....". Stealing should be illegal, not willing to shoot someone over the money in my wallet or the TV on my wall. Not every situation turns into kill or let it go unless you're a psychopath. This is the same bullshit line of argument that is "All taxation is theft by threat of death!". It's a joke made up by the feeble minded to persuade others with feeble minds. No one takes that seriously because its not serious. Its not what you want to be the action when something is done illegally, its what you have to be willing to do if someone persists is doing that illegal thing, and continues to resist your efforts to prevent them from doing it. Take your mail example. You find someone is stealing mail. You send an officer over, you take them to court, convict them and issue a fine. He doesn't pay the fine and continues to steal mail. Now obviously you need to imprison this person. But, he does not believe he is in the wrong and resists arrest. Then he resists the prison officials. And thus he is in solitary. That is this person's best case scenario, because at all the levels of interaction there is a high likelihood of escalation into a fatal incident. Same with our friend Mr. Bundy. He has decided to occupy some federal outpost. This is illegal. If he persists in occupying they will eventually have to use force to get him out, whether that force is dehydration or starvation or guns matters, but not to the extent I think you seem to believe it does, because if he persists in resisting he will die as a result. That's all I am saying. And when it comes to something like theft, I am perfectly comfortable with the notion that if someone persists in stealing mail and resists all efforts to prevent his theft, he will come to a bad end. I am, admittedly less comfortable over that happening to people who attempt to get around cigarette taxes or refuse to pay fees related to cattle or whatever. Also, while these Hammonds aren't the persecuted class they seem to think they are, I would impress upon you that the bullying tactics they accuse BLM of are very real, and are the reason they are one of the last holdouts that own property in the area. And its likely that had they not been such wackadoos, they would be made to look like wackadoos, and criminals. Even people who do not live near/have to traverse federal land commit several felonies a week, without their knowledge. And all a prosecutor has to do is pick a person, then scour the Federal Code for the crime.
(Link to same page explanation)
On January 06 2016 02:36 cLutZ wrote:
That's all I am saying. And when it comes to something like theft, I am perfectly comfortable with the notion that if someone persists in stealing mail and resists all efforts to prevent his theft, he will come to a bad end. I am, admittedly less comfortable over that happening to people who attempt to get around cigarette taxes or refuse to pay fees related to cattle or whatever.
Also, while these Hammonds aren't the persecuted class they seem to think they are, I would impress upon you that the bullying tactics they accuse BLM of are very real, and are the reason they are one of the last holdouts that own property in the area. And its likely that had they not been such wackadoos, they would be made to look like wackadoos, and criminals. Even people who do not live near/have to traverse federal land commit several felonies a week, without their knowledge. And all a prosecutor has to do is pick a person, then scour the Federal Code for the crime.
That's the real issue with the BLM, albeit not as relevant in this case as the Nevada grazing. There's different kinds of federal lands, and the feds can universally declare that this parcel of land is now protected federal land. Back in 2014, they said it was the desert tortoise, it was endangered, and declared that hundreds of thousands of acres are now conservation areas. It doesn't matter if your family has raised cattle there since the 1800s, cya.
So with such a mismatch in power, who speaks for ranchers? The tortoise (or whatever animal it is next time) has politically connected defenders and federal agencies with vast power. Back in the day, the center for biological diversity sued the BLM to force Bundy off the land, when the BLM had given up trying to budge Bundy. The rest of the ranchers & miners lost everything/left, but I think after a huge standoff he's still grazing (just haven't seen recent news stories to the contrary since ~April2015. My biggest gripe is the continued indifference to agencies exercising their power with impunity, like they're perpetually on the side of the angels.
|
I suppose he'll give it the good old college try to get these orders to stick. I'm interested in which GOP candidates can counter forcefully on the lack of statutory basis for any of it.
President Barack Obama wept openly Tuesday as he delivered a forceful defense of new executive actions on gun violence, a set of modest proposals to tighten loopholes that likely face quick legal challenges and could be vulnerable to reversal by a Republican White House.
The president ran through a list of mass shootings that have happened during his time in office, and teared up as he recalled the schoolchildren gunned down in Newtown, Connecticut in 2012.
"First graders in Newtown. First graders," Obama said, pausing to collect himself. "Every time I think about those kids, it gets me mad. And by the way, it happens on the streets of Chicago every day."
Obama offered a new argument to counter gun rights enthusiasts, noting that mass shootings have taken place as Americans have tried to exercise other rights, such as attending worship services or watching a movie. The right to bear firearms is not more important than the right to worship freely or peaceably assemble, he said, and called upon Congress to be "brave enough to stand up to the gun lobby's lies."
“Every single year, more than 30,000 Americans have their lives cut short by guns. Thirty thousand. Suicides, domestic violence, gang shootouts, accidents. Hundreds of thousands of Americans have lost brothers and sisters or buried their own children," he remarked. Politico
|
I am glad he is attempting to close the bullshit “hobbyist” loop hole for gun sales. Hobbyist don’t hand out business cards and travel the country making guns sales. And the TFA has been understaffed and funded for over a decade.
I expect the GOP to continue the side show of “take away your guns,” while the majority of the country just wants the current laws to be fully enforced.
|
Hopefully Obama can use the bully pulpit to break the NRA.
Also, what's the last time we saw a sitting president cry?
|
Don't bank on it the US is a isolated and paranoid nation. Everything is a conspiracy against you and especially against me. That its how the mass of the nation thinks.
|
On January 06 2016 03:25 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2016 02:20 Seuss wrote:On January 06 2016 01:18 Mohdoo wrote:
If Rubio doesn't win one of the first few states, I think it's officially Cruz vs Trump. It's also interesting to see the establishment can't wrap it's head around how much less effective TV ads are nowadays. The problem is bigger than that. Trump's voting bloc isn't going to abandon him for establishment candidates. Even if an ad campaign successfully hurts Trump it won't be Rubio or Jeb getting a windfall, it'll be Cruz. I think the establishment's goal is to drive Trump out of the race or marginalize him by crushing his "I'm a winner" narrative immediately after Super Tuesday. Trump won't waste his money if he's clearly getting battered. Then they can bring all cannons to bear on Cruz and consolidate behind whichever establishment candidate remains. It's not like any substantial amount of states will have voted at that point and a Rubio/Bush/Christie win is not inconceivable at that point, a la McCain's win in 2008.
Christie has zero chance of winning, fwiw.
|
On January 06 2016 05:08 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2016 03:25 TheTenthDoc wrote:On January 06 2016 02:20 Seuss wrote:On January 06 2016 01:18 Mohdoo wrote:
If Rubio doesn't win one of the first few states, I think it's officially Cruz vs Trump. It's also interesting to see the establishment can't wrap it's head around how much less effective TV ads are nowadays. The problem is bigger than that. Trump's voting bloc isn't going to abandon him for establishment candidates. Even if an ad campaign successfully hurts Trump it won't be Rubio or Jeb getting a windfall, it'll be Cruz. I think the establishment's goal is to drive Trump out of the race or marginalize him by crushing his "I'm a winner" narrative immediately after Super Tuesday. Trump won't waste his money if he's clearly getting battered. Then they can bring all cannons to bear on Cruz and consolidate behind whichever establishment candidate remains. It's not like any substantial amount of states will have voted at that point and a Rubio/Bush/Christie win is not inconceivable at that point, a la McCain's win in 2008. Christie has zero chance of winning, fwiw.
Last I heard Christie is something like 33% favorable / 66% unfavorable in NEW JERSEY. The guy is a sitting governor and he doesn't bother staying in state because his state hates him. Guy needs to just resign and retire.
|
I'm not sure if this is from being out of touch or there is just something I'm missing about the GOP?
+ Show Spoiler +
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/oYetUYT.png)
