Those Terrorists in Nevada

[dismal]

Never really thought I'd see the day dismal came out against property rights.

Maybe it's lingering effects from the blood moon.

You didn't see the day I come out against property rights.

 

[dismal]

It's meaningful in relation to the accusation of hypocrisy towards those holding the two different positions. If they can disinguish between accessing the land and profiting off the land, then the notion that there's a hypocritical disconnect between their positions on the two matters is a strawman.

If you say so. I have a tough time believing anyone actually holds the principle that its OK for some subgroup of citizens to occupy public land as long as they are not trying to make a profit.

And it seems a particularly silly distinction in that the government its infinite benevolence and wisdom in the past has deemed the best use of this scrub land in Nevada to be grazing cattle for profit, whereas the people using the parks in Oakland were clearly interfering with the use the government intended for the land, affecting many more people.

 

[Nexus]

The biggest hypocrisy in this thread is coming from the left leaning. I was against law enforcement being jack booted thugs during OWS also. Apparently its ok to most of you as long as the person is white and republican. So you cheer on the no fly zone and militarized police used against a a guy that hasn't paid some fees.

 

[ksen]

wat?

 

[The Paul]

The biggest hypocrisy in this thread is coming from the left leaning. I was against law enforcement being jack booted thugs during OWS also. Apparently its ok to most of you as long as the person is white and republican. So you cheer on the no fly zone and militarized police used against a a guy that hasn't paid some fees.

Is there a part of this story where he was a few days late on a parking ticket or something, and so special forces kicked in his windows as they rappelled down from helicopters? Did something like that happen and I somehow missed it? That would be pretty outrageous.

But unless there's some missing dramatic piece like that you're talking about things that never happened.

 

[Nexus]

Link

According to a notice posted by the Federal Aviation Administration a no-fly zone was enacted for a 3-square-mile area around the site of the Bundy's ranch. That advisory would remain in effect from April 11 until May 11.

 

[ksen]

A no-fly zone?

My god, the inhumanity.

 

[The Paul]

According to a notice posted by the Federal Aviation Administration a no-fly zone was enacted for a 3-square-mile area around the site of the Bundy's ranch. That advisory would remain in effect from April 11 until May 11.

...sounds like something you might do if you were worried a bunch of heavily armed libtards all worked up and paranoid about evil gubmint helicopters were liable to fire on low-flying aircraft.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The biggest hypocrisy in this thread is coming from the left leaning. I was against law enforcement being jack booted thugs during OWS also. Apparently its ok to most of you as long as the person is white and republican. So you cheer on the no fly zone and militarized police used against a a guy that hasn't paid some fees.

They're being jack booted because that's what you have to do when dealing with sovereign citizens. As it stands they didn't bring enough firepower.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

...sounds like something you might do if you were worried a bunch of heavily armed libtards all worked up and paranoid about evil gubmint helicopters were liable to fire on low-flying aircraft.

Actually, it's more about keeping news helicopters away from law enforcement helicopters. The cops quite understandably do *NOT* like to share airspace with news helicopters maneuvering for the best view. Such notices are common whenever there's a newsworthy event that involves air operations and is known about far enough in advance that such a notice can be issued.

The thing is the news copters are operating VFR--not something you want in congested airspace. (We see a lesser version of this around major airports--you're not allowed in their airspace without being under control of the tower.)

 

[RavenSky]

So your position is that it's OK to occupy public land without permission as long as you don't do it for 20 years?

That seems like an odd positon.

Why does it suddenly become bad at the 20 year mark?

no. My position is that your comparison of Bundy to OWS is stupid.

- - - Updated - - -

The biggest hypocrisy in this thread is coming from the left leaning. I was against law enforcement being jack booted thugs during OWS also. Apparently its ok to most of you as long as the person is white and republican. So you cheer on the no fly zone and militarized police used against a a guy that hasn't paid some fees.

The problem with your huff is that there were no "law enforcement being jack booted thugs" during this Bundy bullshit. If any group was being "jack booted thugs" it was Bundy's moronic "army"

- - - Updated - - -

Link

Ohhh noes!!! That means Bundy's moronic air force can't land at his ranch!!!

 

[Ford]

They're being jack booted because that's what you have to do when dealing with sovereign citizens. As it stands they didn't bring enough firepower.

There's no "jack booted" about it, really. Yes, they showed up armed (law enforcement in this country usually is), but also showed an amazing amount of restraint.

Generally speaking, when you point a weapon at police ("militarized" or otherwise) it is the last thing you. These "protestors" showed up looking for a showdown with federal law enforcement, announced their preparedness to die to defend the right of this man's cows to shit on federal land, and even claimed they'd use human shields so that the first casualties would be women and children.

There were thugs in this scenario, and they weren't the ones sporting badges.

 

[RavenSky]

There's no "jack booted" about it, really. Yes, they showed up armed (law enforcement in this country usually is), but also showed an amazing amount of restraint.

Generally speaking, when you point a weapon at police ("militarized" or otherwise) it is the last thing you. These "protestors" showed up looking for a showdown with federal law enforcement, announced their preparedness to die to defend the right of this man's cows to shit on federal land, and even claimed they'd use human shields so that the first casualties would be women and children.

There were thugs in this scenario, and they weren't the ones sporting badges.

And showed up where is a key point, too. Law enforcement showed up on federal lands, not at Bundy's ranch.

 

[maxparrish]

I stopped reading right there.

It seems that you and the Paul were less than impressed with my little screed in post 61. In fact it did not convince anyone, not even myself. You see, it was a thought experiment in testing ideological screening and appeals to emotion (based on identity groups). 90 percent of it was, word for word, taken from a NYTimes opinion column defending illegals - I merely changed the 'names' and lightly altered the circumstances of the trepass.

Hence, once recast in favor of native born ranchers it is dismissed. Curious...very curious.

 

[bilby]

It seems that you and the Paul were less than impressed with my little screed in post 61. In fact it did not convince anyone, not even myself. You see, it was a thought experiment in testing ideological screening and appeals to emotion (based on identity groups). 90 percent of it was, word for word, taken from a NYTimes opinion column defending illegals - I merely changed the 'names' and lightly altered the circumstances of the trepass.

Hence, once recast in favor of native born ranchers it is dismissed. Curious...very curious.

Your presumption that those who took exception to your modified version would not have objected to the original is completely unwarranted.

The only thing you have demonstrated is that you have a foolish and unjustified belief that everyone who disagrees with you on this subject, must agree with one another on every subject.

Not so much a thought experiment as an ill-thought-out non-experiment.

 

[maxparrish]

Well, let those fellows pronounce their 'exception' to both, to illegal Bundy and America's illegal border crashers... I wouldn't leave anything in the oven while waiting tho...

 

[Arctish]

It seems that you and the Paul were less than impressed with my little screed in post 61. In fact it did not convince anyone, not even myself. You see, it was a thought experiment in testing ideological screening and appeals to emotion (based on identity groups). 90 percent of it was, word for word, taken from a NYTimes opinion column defending illegals - I merely changed the 'names' and lightly altered the circumstances of the trepass.

Hence, once recast in favor of native born ranchers it is dismissed. Curious...very curious.

I dismissed it because it sounded like a canned speech about oppressed white men, not a thoughtful post about grazing rights and land use in Nevada.

Bundy is an moocher dressed up in the Confederate flag and calling himself a patriot. He thinks just because he wants something, the government should give it to him. But federal land isn't managed for the benefit of Mr. Bundy, it's managed for multiple uses, including the preservation of fragile ecosystems. Bundy might think the policy is wrongheaded. He might think the land can support all the grazing cattle he wants to put on it. He might even be right. But that doesn't make his decision to exceed grazing limits and refusal to pay grazing fees defensible.

If Bundy doesn't own enough land to keep his cattle fed, he needs to rethink the size of his cattle operation or else pay the fees so his cattle can graze on public land. And if he exceeds the grazing limits he should have his permits revoked. It's selfish lawbreakers like Bundy that ruin sustained use for everybody. He's a cheat, plain and simple.

 

[bilby]

Well, let those fellows pronounce their 'exception' to both, to illegal Bundy and America's illegal border crashers... I wouldn't leave anything in the oven while waiting tho...

Why should they? The two issues are completely unrelated, and it is perfectly possible to support both sets of law breakers; condemn both sets; or support one and condemn the other, all within a consistent moral system. This alone would be sufficient to render any and all results from your 'thought experiment' completely valueless.

The issue in question is whether or not Bundy should be forced to desist from his illegal use of federal land.

Whether or not people oppose unrelated parts of US law is completely irrelevant to that question, and your attempt to deflect attention to those irrelevant and unrelated issues suggests very strongly that you recognise that your position is untenable. If you want to change the subject so badly, can we assume that this means that you can no longer defend your earlier position?

Mr Bundy is legally and morally in the wrong; he is a fool, and he is deserving of no sympathy whatsoever at this point in time. This will remain true whether or not Mexicans illegally enter the USA, and whether or not those who recognise Mr Bundy for the fool that he is, support, condemn or are indifferent to, illegal entry to the US by Mexicans; in exactly the same way that it will remain true regardless of the price per kg of dried Camelia Sinensis leaves on the Beijing commodities exchange.

 

[RavenSky]

Your presumption that those who took exception to your modified version would not have objected to the original is completely unwarranted.

The only thing you have demonstrated is that you have a foolish and unjustified belief that everyone who disagrees with you on this subject, must agree with one another on every subject.

Not so much a thought experiment as an ill-thought-out non-experiment.

The actual problem with his "experiment" is that his modifications caused the entire post to be non-sensical word salad, and therefore ignorable.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Well, let those fellows pronounce their 'exception' to both, to illegal Bundy and America's illegal border crashers... I wouldn't leave anything in the oven while waiting tho...

I know, it's like those vague undefined "typical individuals" can't hold independent ideas from the stereotype of the group. If you are a liberal you must believe in the way I demand you believe!