Print

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

[TD1]

There are laws for a reason. He shouldn't let his cattle graze there; it is detrimental to the local community. Him putting his cattle there is being enforced through violence or the threat of such.

He, as the exceedingly slim minority, is doing something the overwhelming majority don't want. How is that laughable?

[BFEL]

Well while I didn't read the links, the mention of Waco shows the general gist of why this isn't a good thing.

That being said, from what I heard about the story the land his cows are on was owned by him and/or his family for quite awhile (as in, decades at least) without any fuss and then one day the government just showed up, claimed the land was theirs and tried to collect taxes for the entire time he had owned the land.

Which just seemed ridiculous, as even if they DID own the land there should be some form of maximum back period they can demand. I mean fuck, that would be like them just showing up on a Native American reservation and trying to collect taxes for the time period before Columbus landed

There are laws for a reason. He shouldn't let his cattle graze there; it is detrimental to the local community. Him putting his cattle there is being enforced through violence or the threat of such.

He, as the exceedingly slim minority, is doing something the overwhelming majority don't want. How is that laughable?

I think what Yoink is saying is that today the "overwhelming majority" are incapable of informed decisions about what laws/representatives to vote for, seeing as there is an enormous amount of misinformation in any voting campaign, and the politicians who are up for election are all basically unwilling/unable to follow through with half the things they claim they will.

Thus equating current laws to an "overwhelming majority" is tenuous at best.

[Helgoland]

A blue-and-white tank with a gigantic cattle prod instead of a turret, then. And sirens.

[Yoink]

Also, standing up to the government is standing up to what most people want.

Standing up to the government is standing up to what the government wants. Modern governments have far too much power.
The fact that they haven't got their way for once, even over something as inconsequential as some grazing laws, is definitely a good thing.

[TD1]

I read the article yesterday, have slept and seem to have forgotten some key points.

Yes, the government shouldn't have done it. Cue a protest. Not a militant stand-off.

[Strife26]

It's not really a militant stand off when everyone was there protesting peacefully. I mean, to what level would the guys standing with Bundy have to disarm to be palatable to you? Sidearms, swords, pitchforks, or just placards? Armed, peaceful protest is remarkably effective when the protesters are held under proper control.



For my own bit of rage inducing news
http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-courts/ci_25678502/father-kidnapping-suspect-talks-about-how-army-experience

This guy. Also people who cry out PTSD for bullshit in general and try to blame their actions on it.

[GiglameshDespair]

Armed protest is still saying on a certain level 'We might kill you if you don't do what we want.'

It wasn't a peaceful protest, it was an armed occupation.

[Strife26]

Not really. It's not armed occupation to stand on private property. A better level is "we might fight back if you do something illegal"

[Teneb]

Justified or not, it doesn't change the fact he was able to raise and command an armed group.it is not unlikely that he probably uses that same group to enforce his will on the area, remove threats to his authority and in general rule as a petty warlord in a pseudo-feudal system. This happened a lot in certain areas of my country, and still do in the most remote regions. Nothing good ever comes out of that.

[Frumple]

I'm fairly sure there's nothing peaceful about armed protest, regardless of whether it actually turns violent. It might be effective protest, but it definitely isn't peaceful.

Regardless, what it would take for those folks to palatable is for them to not be them. I've had zero good interaction with militia members, and zero good impression of them when I've heard of 'em from other areas. Presumably that's because the ones that aren't rotten don't make the news, but... these tend to be the sort of folks that poison a movement simply by being part of it.

And I damn sure don't like the precedent it's setting. This area is enough of a shithole without having to worry about militia groups coming in from gods know where and claiming local control.

Not really. It's not armed occupation to stand on private property. A better level is "we might fight back if you do something illegal"

They're standing on a hell of a lot more than private property at this point. To say nothing about the fact that the contested lands stopped being private back in the early 90s.

Also pretty sure you mean "immoral" there, since it's not the government on the wrong side of the law this time.

[GiglameshDespair]

It's not private property, though.

The rangers had rounded up hundreds of Bundy's cattle, which had been grazing illegally on federal lands for two decades. Bundy had refused to pay grazing fees, saying he did not recognize the government's authority over the land, a view that attracted vocal support from some right-wing groups.

The Bundy dispute has been simmering since 1993, when the BLM took over the management of the land on which his cattle grazed. The agency ordered him to reduce the number of grazing cattle to protect the habitat of the desert tortoise, which had been listed as "threatened."

Bundy refused and has not paid grazing fees since then. The BLM says he now owes more than $1 million.

It's federal land he was illegally grazing his cattle on, and when they tried to fix that a bunch of people with guns rallied to him, setting up armed checkpoints.

So let's review.

- It's not his land
- He's remained on the land through force of arms
- they've set up armed checkpoints and positioned themselves along roads, and near churches and schools.

So yes. A bunch of people - most of whom don't even live there - remaining on land that isn't theirs because they have guns. Sounds like an armed occupation to me.

[Strife26]

. . . That doesn't really pass the scrutiny of real life. The types who showed up to his ranch are no different than the kind of people who show up to any protest, be it against wall street, or the UN, or whaling, it's just the specific flavor and the issue that changes.


Accusing a rancher of forming his ranch into a psuedo-feudal system is more than a little ridiculous.



No, I perfectly meant illegal. It's illegal for the federal government to take personal property without the approval of the State (and Nevada specifically disagreed with the Federal decision here). More likely though, the presence of armed protesters is an incredible, incredible deterrent to police brutality.



The government took over the management of land that'd been grazed by his family for literally decades and legal action was pursed by both sides in a bunch of different courts for a number of years. When court cases continued to decide in favor of Bundy, the government's response was to force the issue with the threat of force.

Sorry bro, as someone who makes his bread and butter by being naked government force, the act of motivated, organized protesters kinda shows that the government is in the wrong. If it issue isn't important enough for BLM to escalate, then it's not exactly the kind of issue worth trying to back charge a guy for decades of arguable use of land

Also, desert tortoises are a causis beli here, note. The actual purpose behind all the legal maneuvering is BLM trying to force cattle off the land to allow mineral rights to be leased.

[LordSlowpoke]

the birdhouse otaku is going to be the end of me.

guess who apparently is a craftswizerd?

yeah, me

i didn't know either

now there're like five people asking me to make them a birdhouse i'm going to smack someone at this rate

[Kamin]

the birdhouse otaku is going to be the end of me.

guess who apparently is a craftswizerd?

yeah, me

i didn't know either

now there're like five people asking me to make them a birdhouse i'm going to smack someone at this rate

Dude, rich folk love birdhouses. You should totally see this as a money-making opportunity. Wizerd yerself some ducats, yo.

[TD1]

. . . That doesn't really pass the scrutiny of real life. The types who showed up to his ranch are no different than the kind of people who show up to any protest, be it against wall street, or the UN, or whaling, it's just the specific flavor and the issue that changes.

Yes, because wall street protests are backed up by force of arms. This is attracting violent, or at the very least those willing to use violence, people. They aren't the same people. People going to this won't afterwards turn up at wall street.

Accusing a rancher of forming his ranch into a psuedo-feudal system is more than a little ridiculous.

If he has armed men at his disposal, the least he could manage is a threatening public image, and at most directly influence things. All legal-he would simply be intimidating.

No, I perfectly meant illegal. It's illegal for the federal government to take personal property without the approval of the State (and Nevada specifically disagreed with the Federal decision here). More likely though, the presence of armed protesters is an incredible, incredible deterrent to police brutality.

The government took over the management of land that'd been grazed by his family for literally decades and legal action was pursed by both sides in a bunch of different courts for a number of years. When court cases continued to decide in favor of Bundy, the government's response was to force the issue with the threat of force.

That's wrong. However, it doesn't validate return threat of force. Oh look, a fire! Let's put it out with more fire!

Sorry bro, as someone who makes his bread and butter by being naked government force, the act of motivated, organized protesters kinda shows that the government is in the wrong. If it issue isn't important enough for BLM to escalate, then it's not exactly the kind of issue worth trying to back charge a guy for decades of arguable use of land

It doesn't show the government is in the wrong. All it shows is a) the man is popular, b) he has enough money to "hire" said men, or c) people agree with him, but even at that it is still at least the amount who turned up, and probably not that much more.