Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[Loud Whispers]

So arrest him without due process and then hold him hostage until his family agrees to your demands? 

The court gave orders to seize the cattle, not the man.

Ah, so blocking off all the roads, beating up his family and surrounding his estate with armed guards, helicopters, snipers and attack dogs is much better.
They've shown they don't give a fuck about due process, sending 4-6 guys would still have been a hell of a lot better than this de-facto martial law.

http://rt.com/usa/desert-tortoises-euthanize-nevada-024/
RIP in peace tortoises

Not arrest him, but prevent him from interfering with the cattle seizue. Also, why seize the cattle rather than just order it removed? 1000 heads of cattle is a pain in the ass to seize, it's not like the government run ranches to hold the seize cattle.

The cattle will be sold to other privately run ranches, and the government will pocket the funds.

[Loud Whispers]

Aside from the fact that the guys in the helicopters had guns too, how is this plan different from what they did?

Are you serious?

[GlyphGryph]

The man was given orders by the court to remove his cattle which he did not, right? Around here, when you ignore court orders, yes, you get arrested. Wasn't he pretty explicitly breaking the law here? Why didn't the court give orders to seize the man?

[Loud Whispers]

The man was given orders by the court to remove his cattle which he did not, right? Around here, when you ignore court orders, yes, you get arrested. Wasn't he pretty explicitly breaking the law here? Why didn't the court give orders to seize the man?

That is perhaps one of the most perplexing things about it. Why are they going for the man's cattle instead of the man?

[mainiac]

The man was given orders by the court to remove his cattle which he did not, right? Around here, when you ignore court orders, yes, you get arrested. Wasn't he pretty explicitly breaking the law here? Why didn't the court give orders to seize the man?

Court orders to evict someone and the like (y'know poor people crime) generally get you arrested.  But cease and desist orders don't often lead to arrest (y'know, rich people crime).

Are you serious?

Almost always.

[GlyphGryph]

SEC caught colluding with the banks on CEO prosecutions
http://www.vox.com/2014/4/11/5602188/the-secs-just-been-caught-colluding-with-the-banks-its-supposed-to

Say it aint so!

Also, Vox has had like all the juicy news lately hasn't t? Vox and Vice, the news for the new millennium.

[Loud Whispers]

Almost always.

So you can't see the difference between sending about half a dozen guys to claim the cattle versus laying siege to the ranch, deploying $3M of hardware on protestors and the ranchers?

@GG
It is somewhat maddening that these people are practically untouchable.

@Morrigi

[Morrigi]

PICK UP THAT COW CITIZEN

I can't stop laughing.

[Morrigi]

The only things the BLM actually care about in this situation are power and corporate bribery. They don't have the funding to actually do anything with it, and it's questionable whether they actually own it in the first place.

[FearfulJesuit]

John Paul Stevens wants to change the Second Amendment. It'll never fly, of course (unlike the fleet of black helicopters that would doubtless enforce it and send real patriots to FEMA concentration camps).

[Loud Whispers]

You will never know true happiness until you have a fleet of black helicopters.
_{They said I could be anything, yet I'll never be a sky pirate.}

[palsch]

John Paul Stevens wants to change the Second Amendment. It'll never fly, of course (unlike the fleet of black helicopters that would doubtless enforce it and send real patriots to FEMA concentration camps).

The full list of his proposed amendments is interesting;

1) The “Anti-Commandeering Rule” (Amend the Supremacy Clause of Article VI) This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges and other public officials. in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
2) Political Gerrymandering – Districts represented by members of Congress, or by members of any state legislative body, shall be compact and composed of contiguous territory. The state shall have the burden of justifying any departures from this requirement by reference to neutral criteria such as natural, political, or historical boundaries or demographic changes. The interest in enhancing or preserving the political power of the party in control of the state government is not such a neutral criterion.
3) Campaign Finance – Neither the First Amendment nor any other provision of this Constitution shall be construed to prohibit the Congress or any state from imposing reasonable limits on the amount of money that candidates for public office, or their supporters, may spend in election campaigns.
4) Sovereign Immunity – Neither the Tenth Amendment, the Eleventh Amendment, nor any other provision of this Constitution, shall be construed to provide any state, state agency, or state officer with an immunity from liability for violating any act of Congress, or any provision of this Constitution.
5) Death Penalty- (Amend the 8th Amendment) Excessive Bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments such as the death penalty inflicted.
6) The Second Amendment – (Amend the 2nd Amendment) A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms when serving in the Militia shall not be infringed.

Some more detail on four of them.

EDIT: And on a far lighter note, any crack fic writers need a concept going into the next presidential election cycle?

[FearfulJesuit]

I'm not worried about 5) in the long term; I don't think the death penalty is going to survive for more than another couple of decades. (This is for the same reason that I'm not worried about whether or not legislative candidates support same-sex marriage, although almost all the halfway decent ones do; the courts will make it the law of the land long before every state legislature signs on). The others are good proposals, though, I think.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Might be a bit faster than that.

Also, Pew released a rather large report on demographics and trends called The Next America. It's very interesting. In particular, I've got to love how much unfounded trust people have in Social Security, at least the Millennials see the writing on the wall. It's a dead, damned program that needs to be gutted before it does all the harm it is clearly projected to do.

[Frumple]

... yeah. How do you propose to gut it without leaving a significant portion of our elderly either on the streets or further below the poverty line than they already are? There's... considerably more SS does, than that, but that's what you're going to have to solve if you want to "gut" the program before it does more harm.