Politics

[thesameguy]

Indeed.

Personally, I think the idea of "let the manufacturer do the selling" is the pervasive mentality in west coast dealers. Maybe that's why there haven't been any Tesla-related uproars. I guess "these fuckers gotta buy!" is still the MO back east. ;)

[Crazed_Insanity]

Even when the manufacturers issue a recall, good luck trying to get the dealer to fix it! I had a rear latch problem with my scion tC....it was made of plastic and is prone to breaking....Scion/Toyota corporate finally issued a replacement bulletin, but the dealer still wouldn't honor it.

Really? How is that possible, or even legal? Replacements should be at no cost to the dealer, why would they refuse? Unless there's a parts shortage or perhaps the technicians aren't trained to do the fix yet? Anyway, that just seems mind boggling to me, but then again I haven't owned a Toyota for a while...

Regarding Tesla in NJ, it's not like it's a huge market and it's not like Tesla got a lot of cars in its inventory that they need to get rid of them... it'd be New Jersey's loss if they decided to block Tesla sales.

[TheBenior]

New Jersey is the 11th most populous state with the second highest median income in the US.

I reckon that makes it fairly important to Tesla.

[MR2 Fan]

Really? How is that possible, or even legal? Replacements should be at no cost to the dealer, why would they refuse? Unless there's a parts shortage or perhaps the technicians aren't trained to do the fix yet? Anyway, that just seems mind boggling to me, but then again I haven't owned a Toyota for a while...

This thread explains it pretty well:

http://www.scionlife.com/forums/showthread.php?t=222594

[thesameguy]

New Jersey is the 11th most populous state with the second highest median income in the US.

I reckon that makes it fairly important to Tesla.

And establishing an owner base is probably key to justifying/financing the ever-expanding supercharger network... and NJ is probably important in that effort.

[Jason]

Facts are Billi's weakness.

[thesameguy]

Whaddayagonnado?

[FaultyMario]

Not to mention that it is a discriminatory practice damaging to both individual and corporation.

[George]

Last summer I was surprised to learn that there was a recall on my 1999 Accord - fourteen years later! The local Honda dealer replaced the part at no charge and even gave me a ride to work and back.

And I worked one brief summer in high school at a new car dealership. I remember one of the service advisors saying they liked warranty work because customers didn't complain about the cost and they always got paid by the manufacturer.

But, that was a long time ago.

[thesameguy]

Rare interview with Jim Appleton:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGS2tKQhdhY

[Rob]

Facts are Billi's weakness.

Seriously. Literally any point of discussion and he comes flying in from Illinformedsville with a brief stopover in Couldntbemorewrongstad.

Again.....how he is not a Poe?

[overpowered]

https://scontent-a-lax.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/t1/1549435_838687399491242_7006690_n.jpg

[Yw-slayer]

414 Favourites? LOL

[Crazed_Insanity]

Whaddayagonnado?

Exactly Rob and Jason! Whatever Billi or you guys said won't change the reality that Tesla won't sell their cars in NJ. Further, I'm pretty sure Tesla's not going to go bankrupt because of NJ. Their lofty stock did take a hit because of the set back, but I'm sure for the rich folks who really wanted a Tesla, surely they can find a way to get one outside of NJ if that's what they really want.

If Tesla wants to sell as many cars as GM or Toyota, then it'll have to eventually setup their dealerships properly. Hopefully more proper than what Toyota did with Scion dealerships...

[21Kid]

Seriously. Literally any point of discussion and he comes flying in from Illinformedsville with a brief stopover in Couldntbemorewrongstad. I think that's why I just stopped reading his posts in general. Any time I see his name I usually just skip to the next post.

[KillerB]

He also refuses to get his valves adjusted in his S2000 per the manufacturer's specifications. :(

[Rob]

God is his warranty.

[Crazed_Insanity]

Yes, the Lord is my Shepherd, I just wasn't sure when was the last time I had them adjusted without looking into the records that's all. I actually did have them adjusted back in 90k miles (12k miles ago) and weird thing is that my sticky fuel gauge problem is gone now even without me adding any fuel cleaners. I'm also idling just fine at the moment. Weird. Wonder if rain and humidity had anything to do with my earlier problems. Trouble hit me around the time when LA was pretty rainy at the time...

Anyway, this thread really shouldn't be about Billi and his car...

Let's go back to politics. Or is this politics thread going to be the 'new' religion thread as before?

[FaultyMario]

Better his car than his bandwagon.

[Crazed_Insanity]

Hey, aren't we on the same Jesus wagon?

[FaultyMario]

Yeah, but my Jesus is more like the Willem Dafoe "dude's got issues" Jesus from that movie.

Or the Holy Christ of Higuera (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/sep/23/theobserver.worldnews) as he welcomed death and passion (http://img11.nnm.me/7/e/3/3/0/f1e09fef1e180b40c3b7b71c6e6.jpg).

Maybe throw in some Biggus Dickus, too.

[neanderthal]

And the Jesus I read about in the Bible, makes me wonder what Bible you are reading.

[Crazed_Insanity]

If you wish to do a bible study, feel free to start another thread. I'd be happy to discuss the bible with you there.

[Yw-slayer]

Dude, you discuss The Bible with people in every thread.

[Jason]

:snap:

[Rob]

Dude, you discuss The Bible with people in every thread.

Don't do as he does, do as he says.

Which makes sense as otherwise believers would do literally fuck all.

[Crazed_Insanity]

Dude, you discuss The Bible with people in every thread.

How have I done so in this thread?

[Yw-slayer]

You have. Admittedly the first mention of religion wasn't yours.

[Crazed_Insanity]

I have responded to folks regarding my faith, I have not talked about the bible in every thread. Don't be like Billi, get your facts straight please.

[Rob]

YW, he takes everything written down here super-literally with no room for irony, humour, or context.

Bizarrely, he does the exact opposite with the bible, except the humour and irony bits, which he simply can't do.

[tigeraid]

Bizarrely, he does the exact opposite with the bible, except the humour and irony bits, which he simply can't do.

:up:

[21Kid]

:lol: Too true!

[overpowered]

George won't like this:

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/03/13/house-gop-passes-bill-to-force-obama-to-crack-down-on-legal-weed-in-states-that-allow-it/

[Random]

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said in a statement that the bill would be “dead on arrival”


..

[21Kid]

Just like all of the ACA repeal bills they try to pass...

[Freude am Fahren]

FUCK THE FEDERAL GOVUNMENT! STATES' RIGHTS!

err, wait, a state is doing something we don't like...

SEND IN THE MARINES!

[Jason]

:lol:

[Tom Servo]

Dear god, I hope they called it the 2014 Ironic Weed Bill.

[overpowered]

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=14d_1348362692

[Freude am Fahren]

That's pretty cool. Kinda gives you an idea of how ununified and messy what is now Germany, and others, was for a long time.

[Yw-slayer]

You Hapsburg Empire n00b lol

[21Kid]

I'm afraid that #McConnelling will make Mitch more popular with the voters. The irony will probably be lost on most of the people that aren't already voting for someone else.

[21Kid]

To the People of New Jersey (http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/people-new-jersey)


On Tuesday, under pressure from the New Jersey auto dealer lobby to protect its monopoly, the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission, composed of political appointees of the Governor, ended your right to purchase vehicles at a manufacturer store within the state. Governor Christie had promised that this would be put to a vote of the elected state legislature, which is the appropriate way to change the law. When it became apparent to the auto dealer lobby that this approach would not succeed, they cut a backroom deal with the Governor to circumvent the legislative process and pass a regulation that is fundamentally contrary to the intent of the law.

It is worth examining the history of these laws to understand why they exist, as the auto dealer franchise laws were originally put in place for a just cause and are now being twisted to an unjust purpose. Many decades ago, the incumbent auto manufacturers sold franchises to generate capital and gain a salesforce. The franchisees then further invested a lot of their money and time in building up the dealerships. That’s a fair deal and it should not be broken. However, some of the big auto companies later engaged in pressure tactics to get the franchisees to sell their dealerships back at a low price. The franchisees rightly sought protection from their state legislatures, which resulted in the laws on the books today throughout the United States (these laws are not present anywhere else in the world).

The intent was simply to prevent a fair and longstanding deal between an existing auto company and its dealers from being broken, not to prevent a new company that has no franchisees from selling directly to consumers. In most states, the laws are reasonable and clear. In a handful of states, the laws were written in an overzealous or ambiguous manner. When all auto companies sold through franchises, this didn’t really matter. However, when Tesla came along as a new company with no existing franchisees, the auto dealers, who possess vastly more resources and influence than Tesla, nonetheless sought to force us to sell through them.

The reason that we did not choose to do this is that the auto dealers have a fundamental conflict of interest between promoting gasoline cars, which constitute virtually all of their revenue, and electric cars, which constitute virtually none. Moreover, it is much harder to sell a new technology car from a new company when people are so used to the old. Inevitably, they revert to selling what’s easy and it is game over for the new company.

The evidence is clear: when has an American startup auto company ever succeeded by selling through auto dealers? The last successful American car company was Chrysler, which was founded almost a century ago, and even they went bankrupt a few years ago, along with General Motors. Since the founding of Chrysler, there have been dozens of failures, Tucker and DeLorean being simply the most well-known. In recent years, electric car startups, such as Fisker, Coda, and many others, attempted to use auto dealers and all failed.

An even bigger conflict of interest with auto dealers is that they make most of their profit from service, but electric cars require much less service than gasoline cars. There are no oil, spark plug or fuel filter changes, no tune-ups and no smog checks needed for an electric car. Also, all Tesla Model S vehicles are capable of over-the-air updates to upgrade the software, just like your phone or computer, so no visit to the service center is required for that either.

Going a step further, I have made it a principle within Tesla that we should never attempt to make servicing a profit center. It does not seem right to me that companies try to make a profit off customers when their product breaks. Overcharging people for unneeded servicing (often not even fixing the original problem) is rampant within the industry and happened to me personally on several occasions when I drove gasoline cars. I resolved that we would endeavor never to do such a thing at Tesla, as described in the Tesla service blog post I wrote last year.

Why Did They Claim That This Change Was Necessary?

The rationale given for the regulation change that requires auto companies to sell through dealers is that it ensures “consumer protection”. If you believe this, Gov. Christie has a bridge closure he wants to sell you! Unless they are referring to the mafia version of “protection”, this is obviously untrue. As anyone who has been through the conventional auto dealer purchase process knows, consumer protection is pretty much the furthest thing from the typical car dealer’s mind.

There are other ways to assess the premise that auto dealers take better care of customers than Tesla does. Consumer Reports conducts an annual survey of 1.1 million subscribers, which factors in quality, reliability and consumer satisfaction. The Tesla Model S was the top overall pick of any vehicle in the world, scoring 99 out of 100. This is the highest score any car has ever received. By comparison, in the industry report card, Ford, which sells their cars through franchise dealers, received a score of 50. BMW, which makes competing premium sedans, received a score of 66.

Consumers across the country have also voiced their opinion on the sales model they prefer. In North Carolina, a Triangle Business Journal poll found that 97 percent of people polled said Tesla should be allowed to sell cars directly. A poll by the Austin Business Journal showed that 86 percent of respondents were in favor of direct sales, and in a Los Angeles Times poll 99 percent of respondents came to the same conclusion. These aren’t polls that we commissioned and there are many more like them. We have not seen a single poll that didn’t result in an overwhelming majority saying they preferred the direct model to the traditional dealer model. Democracy is supposed to reflect the will of the people. When a politician acts in a manner so radically opposed to the will of the people who elected him, the only explanation is that there are other factors at play.

Going Forward

Some reassurances are also in order. Until at least April 1, everything is business as usual for Tesla in New Jersey. It should also be noted that this regulation deals only with sales, so our service centers will not be affected. Our stores will transition to being galleries, where you can see the car and ask questions of our staff, but we will not be able to discuss price or complete a sale in the store. However, that can still be done at our Manhattan store just over the river in Chelsea or our King of Prussia store near Philadelphia.

Most importantly, even after April 1, you will still be able to order vehicles from New Jersey for delivery in New Jersey on our TeslaMotors.com website.

We are evaluating judicial remedies to correct the situation. Also, if you believe that your right to buy direct at a Tesla store should be restored, please contact your state senator & assemblyman: www.njleg.state.nj.us/districts/districtnumbers.asp.

Finally, we would like to thank the many people who showed up in Trenton on Tuesday to support Tesla and speak out against the MVC’s back-door tactics in passing this regulation change without public consultation or due process. It was an amazing response at very short notice and much appreciated.

Elon

[MR2 Fan]

If you believe this, Gov. Christie has a bridge closure he wants to sell you!

Oh Snap!

[Crazed_Insanity]

Heh, Christie's chances of a presidential nomination's dwindling for sure...

Really thought he's the kind of get the job done type of guy. Turned out his just like any other politician.

[overpowered]

She wins the primary.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WLrITJdDek

[MR2 Fan]

A tweet I saw today:


Topher Mathews @GeorgetownMet Hard to look at these maps and not conclude that if the South were its own country, it'd be a developing one at best:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/03/26/the-ten-maps-that-illustrate-the-healthiest-counties-in-america/

[21Kid]

A tweet I saw today:

Hard to look at these maps and not conclude that if the South were its own country, it'd be a developing one at best:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...es-in-america/
Heh, I was just thinking of something similar yesterday.
I was having a conversation with Jay on Facebook where he was bashing the Democratic controlled state of Illinois, since they haven't been able to balance the budget with the income tax increase that's set to expire. He wanted to go back to the previous tax rate which partially caused the deficiency in the first place, and is still one of the lowest in the country(even at the temporarily increased rate). I was about to point out how if it's the democrats that are the problem, he should probably move to a Red state. I'm sure they'd be more than happy to accept him in Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Montana, Wyoming, etc... But, he deleted the post and all of the comments before I could post it. :rolleyes:

[Freude am Fahren]

Those maps are interesting.

The Pollution one:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/files/2014/03/airpollution.png
I wonder why Nevada and that Cluster in the mid west are there.

The BMI one:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/files/2014/03/obesity.png
Kinda funny to see the cluster of fatties in the middle of Florida.

And finally. ALASKA! Wrap it up!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/files/2014/03/chlamydia.png

[FaultyMario]

I'd guess those parts of Alaska are a multiplication and not a division like the rest of the country.

:P

[Rob]

Dirty dick Alaskans.

[LHutton]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kuinzEynAxM&feature=youtu.be

[overpowered]

https://scontent-b-sjc.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc3/t1.0-9/1613945_739845026045964_1849548935_n.jpg

[overpowered]

http://static.politifact.com.s3.amazonaws.com/politifact%2Fphotos%2FWar_FB_meme.jpg

Erm, not exactly correct.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/mar/31/facebook-posts/viral-meme-says-united-states-has-invaded-22-count/

[Rikadyn]

also difference between the illegal wars the US has committed, and completely annexing a part of another country to be part of your country.

[Crazed_Insanity]

Actually I think the US govt had annexed regions to become parts of itself in the past. Just that they were done before there were UN or NATO. ;)

However one looks at it, US really has no moral authority for stuffs like this.

[FaultyMario]

Yeah, like Galford D. Weller.

[21Kid]

Jeezus, it's getting worse, not better...

High court voids overall contribution limits (http://news.yahoo.com/high-court-voids-overall-contribution-limits-141339263--finance.html)

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court struck down limits Wednesday in federal law on the overall campaign contributions the biggest individual donors may make to candidates, political parties and political action committees.
The justices said in a 5-4 vote that Americans have a right to give the legal maximum to candidates for Congress and president, as well as to parties and PACs, without worrying that they will violate the law when they bump up against a limit on all contributions, set at $123,200 for 2013 and 2014. That includes a separate $48,600 cap on contributions to candidates.

[FaultyMario]

http://www.miamiherald.com/2014/04/02/4035041/mexico-political-boss-denies-secretary.html

[Jason]

Jeezus, it's getting worse, not better...

High court voids overall contribution limits (http://news.yahoo.com/high-court-voids-overall-contribution-limits-141339263--finance.html)

What the FUCK.

This sort of crap pisses me off so much. How can the people be represented when politicians are purely responsible to money, and money alone?

[Crazed_Insanity]

This contribution limit is not a simple issue. If we set fundraising limits, incumbents and rich folks will always have the advantage during an election. If you're the rich incumbent, then nobody will be able to oppose you because you're already well known and you're deeper pocket can always outspend opposition who's handicapped by the limit.

If we don't set limits, of course rich people can still have the advantage, it's like a no win situation..., but at least a popular or slick politician could still get a shot if he's good at raising money. (Whether it's direct from people or rich corporations...)

I think they really should just ban fund raising altogether... and just allocate portion of the govt fund to help people know the candidates. Like help them set up websites or something like that. Make sure the politicians spend time on the job doing the job right to raise your chance of re-election rather than just all over the place trying to raise money. Especially in this digital age. Who needs all these flyers or signs or TV ads? But anyway, even if that were the case, how do we really enforce politicians to not accepting money? Politicians can always be 'bought' under the table... Anyway, can never completely stop corruption, but I still think it's probably wiser to completely ban fundraising in the future. If you want to get to know the candidates better, go read their websites or something. There'd also be no more negative ads! :)

[Jason]

I'd be totally ok with banning fundraising, and just using public dollars split evenly between candidates.

[FaultyMario]

You mean rich men couldn't spend their money on the broadcasting industries they themselves own? how dare you? YOU MUST HATE FREEDOM!

[Dicknose]

http://static.politifact.com.s3.amazonaws.com/politifact%2Fphotos%2FWar_FB_meme.jpg

Erm, not exactly correct.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/mar/31/facebook-posts/viral-meme-says-united-states-has-invaded-22-count/

These guys claim bombing is not invasion.
Ok maybe not, but not exactly peaceful.
So an invasion is with ground troops, but air strikes with 100 times the fatalities isn't the same thing, it's somehow less.
And coming in because you have citizens is ok, so Russia could use the same argument.

Let's face it, the US marches in (or flies over or parks a fleet next door) to all parts of the planet, far and wide.
Russia steps in to he place next door that says it wants them (and to join them) and suddenly it's he biggest evil ever.

I'm with the Joker

[LHutton]

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Diesel-Exhaust-Blamed-for-11-000-Yearly-Deaths-in-the-US-UK-404202.shtml


A new paper in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives says that, each year, about 11,000 people in the United States and the United Kingdom die as a result of exposure to diesel exhaust.

Specifically, researchers with the Emory University and several other institutions in Europe say that, of the total number of lung cancer deaths reported in these countries on a yearly basis, 6% are caused by people's breathing in diesel emissions.

[overpowered]

I'm with the JokerAs the article points out, a lot of the so called "invasions" don't fit any reasonable definition of invasion -- not even bombing without ground troops which the article did not accept. At least one proper invasion during the period was not included. Getting the facts straight actually does matter.

[Dicknose]

The number and definition are a bit flimsy, but the point is that the US has done plenty that would be considered worse.
How about grade them by fatalities?
How many recent "actions" by the US has killed more people?
I presume "actions" is a suitable word if you don't have ground troops or are just helping US citizens in another country.

How often does the US talk about supporting democracy, but here is a case where the democratic decision was to break away and join Russia. Wouldn't supporting democracy be to support Crimea going to Russia?
Or is Russia still the boogeyman?

[FaultyMario]

I'm sure you'll find them accurate.

http://www.sainthoax.com/polivillains.html

[21Kid]

:lol: Kim Jong-Un

[MR2 Fan]

Video: Fox News Eliminates Distinction from Parody

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/watch/fox-news-eliminates-distinction-from-parody-220727363593

[overpowered]

:lol:

[overpowered]

https://scontent-a-lax.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc1/t1.0-9/10154149_651319148248640_5784434316207072568_n.jpg

[21Kid]

Republicans Block the Paycheck Fairness Bill in the Senate (http://news.yahoo.com/republicans-block-paycheck-fairness-bill-senate-162222609.html)

On Wednesday morning, Senate Republicans blocked Democratic Sen. Barbara Mikulski's Paycheck Fairness Act, which aims to reduce workplace discrimination against women. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell argued that the bill has nothing to do with women, and that Democrats are simply making show votes for their "powerful pals on the Left."
:angry:
How can they think this makes them look like anything but a bunch of dicks?

edit:
Not everyone is aware that Tuesday was Equal Pay Day, marking how much extra time women would have to work into 2014 to earn as much as men. It’s an important day for Democratic activists seeking to highlight the discrepancy in wages. Women earn 77 cents for every dollar earned by men, and equal pay for equal work, a slogan that dates back to the early suffragists, is enjoying renewed resonance.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell appeared to couple his criticism of the pay equity bill with his fury at Majority Leader Harry Reid’s attacks on the conservative Koch brothers. All that Democrats are doing, McConnell said, is trying to “blow a few kisses to their powerful pals on the left.”
So, ALL WOMEN are "powerful pals" on the left??? :?
And all of the republicans laws that cater to the ultra rich don't count?
Am I actually reading this right? Is he really that delusional?!?

[LHutton]

If women are paid fairly, then how will they be able to afford this guy's pay increase?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/apr/4/members-congress-are-underpaid-cant-live-decently-/


A retiring Democratic congressman from Virginia says federal lawmakers don’t make enough money to get by in both Washington and back home.

“I think the American people should know that the members of Congress are underpaid,” Rep. James P. Moran told CQ Roll Call.

[LHutton]

So what's going on here?

Militia Push Feds out of Nevada: Sheriff of Clark County Announces Feds Leaving Bundy’s Land

http://offgridsurvival.com/militia-push-feds-out-of-nevada-sheriff-of-clark-county-announces-feds-leaving-bundys-land/

[MR2 Fan]

Supposedly that guy has had his cattle illegally on federal land since the 1990's and hasn't paid taxes or something, so the goverment tries to get their land usage back and...blah blah, patriotism militia

[Jason]

I can understand both sides of the situation... on one hand, federal land should be *our* land, since it's our taxes that pay the federal government. But on the other side, grazing cattle is a significant use in some cases, so I can understand a fee.

[neanderthal]

While I get that federal lands are all our lands and he should be free to graze his cattle there, he should also pay whatever fees are required. Period.

More importantly, I love how the right (and especially their talking heads) which has campaigned tirelessly about "the lawlessness of the entire Obama candidacy" is now siding with this avowed lawbreaker. But obviously the rule of law doesn't apply when the issue doesn't line up with thier view.

[LHutton]

Supposedly that guy has had his cattle illegally on federal land since the 1990's and hasn't paid taxes or something, so the goverment tries to get their land usage back and...blah blah, patriotism militia
1870s.

[overpowered]

https://scontent-a-lax.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/t1.0-9/1014458_860196547340327_7861429648970887515_n.jpg

[Mr Wonder]

Supposedly that guy has had his cattle illegally on federal land since the 1990's and hasn't paid taxes or something, so the goverment tries to get their land usage back and...blah blah, patriotism militia


1870s. Nope. That was legally, and actually from the late 1880s. They've been on there illegally since he stopped paying the, much cheaper than market rate, grazing fees in 1993. In the 21 years since then he's been taken to court and his ridiculous argument was deemed to carry no legal weight so he lost and was fined. He has also continued to, illegally, use the land to graze his cattle so obviously continued to rack up grazing fees. This action by the BLM was to confiscate the cattle currently illegally grazing on federal land in order to remove them from federal land and sell them to pay off his fines, kinda like a bailiff's repossession. He's very, very squarely in the wrong here.

As for his militia, aiming a weapon at a federal official whilst they are carrying out their duty is a felony, which I think it gets you up to 25 years. Also try aiming a gun at a police officer in the US when they want to speak to you, it's called suicide by cop. The fact that some were planning to hide behind women and children doesn't paint them in a particularly good light either.

The fact that this hardcore group of sovereign citizen nutjobs were basically trying to protect this rancher's ability to illegally mooch off the government is just the irony icing on the massive fuckwit cake.

[LHutton]

Nope. That was legally, and actually from the late 1880s. They've been on there illegally since he stopped paying the, much cheaper than market rate, grazing fees in 1993. In the 21 years since then he's been taken to court and his ridiculous argument was deemed to carry no legal weight so he lost and was fined. He has also continued to, illegally, use the land to graze his cattle so obviously continued to rack up grazing fees. This action by the BLM was to confiscate the cattle currently illegally grazing on federal land in order to remove them from federal land and sell them to pay off his fines, kinda like a bailiff's repossession. He's very, very squarely in the wrong here.

As for his militia, aiming a weapon at a federal official whilst they are carrying out their duty is a felony, which I think it gets you up to 25 years. Also try aiming a gun at a police officer in the US when they want to speak to you, it's called suicide by cop. The fact that some were planning to hide behind women and children doesn't paint them in a particularly good light either.

The fact that this hardcore group of sovereign citizen nutjobs were basically trying to protect this rancher's ability to illegally mooch off the government is just the irony icing on the massive fuckwit cake.
He didn't start paying grazing fees until 1973. 1877-1973 is one heck of a long time. Who owned the land first? Mexico. Good luck charging 5,000 people with a felony.

Looks like Feds trashed the land on the way home, very professional:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/apr/17/cliven-bundys-nevada-ranch-wrecked-by-retreating-f/


The federal government may have ordered Bureau of Land Management agents to stand down and ride away from the surveillance spots they took up outside a Nevada rancher’s cattle property — but they didn’t exactly go quietly.

Fox News reported BLM agents left a slew of property damages in their wake, including holes in water tanks, wrecked water lines and destroyed fences.

The federal force is also accused by family members of rancher Cliven Bundy of hiring so-called “cowboys” who killed two prized bulls.

[MR2 Fan]

Fox News reported...

I'm sorry, I stopped reading after that.

Fox News is BEGGING for this to turn into another Waco/Ruby Ridge as they've been preaching it for days on end even after the stand-off ended peacefully.

[LHutton]

All news is selective.

[MR2 Fan]

All news is selective.

there's a difference between selective and pure right-wing propaganda

[Mr Wonder]

He didn't start paying grazing fees until 1973. 1877-1973 is one heck of a long time. Who owned the land first? Mexico. Good luck charging 5,000 people with a felony.
Yeah and Mexico ceded it to the the US in 1848. Game, set, match. Your landlord has upped your rent, from nothing to a small fee, you stop paying it because freedom; you can't use the land any more. You continue to use it you get evicted and your stuff taken to pay unpaid fees. This isn't difficult to understand, certainly the Judge didn't have any issues.

So if enough people choose to ignore a law we should give them a pass? Where do we draw the line on this? 5000 is clearly above it for you, 2500? 100? 50? 2? Any number as long as you agree with their stance?
They obviously wont arrest everyone, I don't imagine they were all armed let alone pointing their weapons at officers. Though Mr Eric Parker from central Idaho may be in for a world of hurt...


Fox news report not worth the bandwidth it travels on, I'm surprised anyone is is quoting it. Not saying it's not possible but when it's only come from one side of the argument and only Fox is running it odds are against you.
Hell Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly aren't on this assclown's side. That should tell you a bit.

[LHutton]

Yeah and Mexico ceded it to the the US in 1848.
At gun/cannon-point. The same way a liquor store cedes money to an armed robber.


Game, set, match. Your landlord has upped your rent, from nothing to a small fee, you stop paying it because freedom; you can't use the land any more. You continue to use it you get evicted and your stuff taken to pay unpaid fees. This isn't difficult to understand, certainly the Judge didn't have any issues.
Someone owns land. They neglect that land and you're on it for 10+ years uncontested, the land is yours. On it for 96 years uncontested, then any contestant is having a laugh. The time for the Federal government to contest this land has long passed, along with the rest of the 19th century.


So if enough people choose to ignore a law we should give them a pass? Where do we draw the line on this? 5000 is clearly above it for you, 2500? 100? 50? 2? Any number as long as you agree with their stance?
In many ways that is how progressive democracy works. 5,000 people actually turned up with guns, with a further 5,000 in the wings. That doesn't mean that the total political support is only 5-10,000 by any stretch of the imagination. That just means that the number of people willing to turn up with a gun is about 10,000. Similarly the number of Feds who turned up was only about 100.


Fox news report not worth the bandwidth it travels on, I'm surprised anyone is is quoting it. Not saying it's not possible but when it's only come from one side of the argument and only Fox is running it odds are against you.
Hell Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly aren't on this assclown's side. That should tell you a bit.
They're both imbeciles, you can't suddenly nut-swing from their 'sound judgement' just because you agree with their stance. All news is news. It's always selective and biased and sometimes wrong, but Fox don't have exclusivity on that by any means. Remember the dead Iraqis presented to the world as dead Syrians 10 years later?

[FaultyMario]

At gun/cannon-point. The same way a liquor store cedes money to an armed robber.

Way, way more complicated than that.
As I've said before, your incompetence at coherent debate is a shame to our community. Please take your simplistic diatribes elsewhere.

kthxby.

[LHutton]

Way, way more complicated than that.
As I've said before, your incompetence at coherent debate is a shame to our community. Please take your simplistic diatribes elsewhere.

kthxby.
Respond with two lines of criticism, complaining about a lack of coherent debate?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Cession


Most of the area had been the Mexican territory of Alta California, while a southeastern strip on the Rio Grande had been part of Santa Fe de Nuevo México, most of whose area and population were east of the Rio Grande on land that had been claimed by the Republic of Texas since 1835, but never controlled or even approached aside from the Texas Santa Fe Expedition. Mexico controlled the territory later known as the Mexican Cession, with considerable local autonomy punctuated by several revolts and few troops sent from central Mexico, in the period from 1821-2 after independence from Spain up through 1846 when U.S. military forces seized control of California and New Mexico on the outbreak of the Mexican-American War.

The cession of this territory from Mexico was a major goal of the war. Alta California and Santa Fe de Nuevo Mexico were captured soon after the start of the war and the last resistance there was subdued in January 1847, but Mexico would not accept the loss of territory. Therefore during 1847 United States troops invaded central Mexico and occupied the Mexican capital of Mexico City, but still no Mexican government was willing to ratify transfer of the northern territories to the U.S. It was uncertain whether any treaty could be reached.

Plus a few more too:

http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interventions.html

Doesn't really say much for the character of the claimant in this particular case.

[FaultyMario]

If you are not yet aware, I try to limit my interactions with you, I cherish my mental health enough to know better.

Thanks for trying, but I will not participate in your insults to my Internet family.

[Crazed_Insanity]

This post sux.

kthxbye!

[Taimar]

Someone owns land. They neglect that land and you're on it for 10+ years uncontested, the land is yours.

No. "Squatters" do not get title to land if they sit on it long enough and definitely not if they are not physically living on it, at least not under Nevada law or Federal law. This is Federal land and is not in his possession.



In many ways that is how progressive democracy works. 5,000 people actually turned up with guns, with a further 5,000 in the wings. That doesn't mean that the total political support is only 5-10,000 by any stretch of the imagination. That just means that the number of people willing to turn up with a gun is about 10,000. Similarly the number of Feds who turned up was only about 100.


No, that is not how progressive democracy works. That is how mob rule works.

I'm not sure why you think it is acceptable (let alone desirable) for 5,000 easily led, well-armed, angry automatons to show up and physically threaten law enforcement in the name of defending an avowed lawbreaker who has stated for the record that he does not believe in any legitimate legal authority from the government.

In this case, a person has broken a civil contract and there are consequences to it. It is not "democracy" when a group of people with perhaps a second grader's understanding of the Constitution come in and start ranting nonsensically and brandishing guns to prevent the rule of law from being applied and administered. It is mob rule and terrorism. Ignorance of the law is not a defense.

This individual is not paying his rent. His landlord is the government in this case, and they have every right to take back their property and sell off whatever he leaves on it and, if necessary, send him to jail if he continues to trespass.

[LHutton]

No. "Squatters" do not get title to land if they sit on it long enough and definitely not if they are not physically living on it, at least not under Nevada law or Federal law. This is Federal land and is not in his possession.
Check adverse possession on that.



No, that is not how progressive democracy works. That is how mob rule works.
They are not completely exclusive.



I'm not sure why you think it is acceptable (let alone desirable) for 5,000 easily led, well-armed, angry automatons to show up and physically threaten law enforcement in the name of defending an avowed lawbreaker who has stated for the record that he does not believe in any legitimate legal authority from the government.

In this case, a person has broken a civil contract and there are consequences to it. It is not "democracy" when a group of people with perhaps a second grader's understanding of the Constitution come in and start ranting nonsensically and brandishing guns to prevent the rule of law from being applied and administered. It is mob rule and terrorism. Ignorance of the law is not a defense.

This individual is not paying his rent. His landlord is the government in this case, and they have every right to take back their property and sell off whatever he leaves on it and, if necessary, send him to jail if he continues to trespass.
After the period of 1877 to 1973 uncontested, it is his land. Statements about automatons are somewhat comical but irrelevant. They lost their rights after the 19th century ended. The Feds have as much right to sell off his cattle as Mexicans have rights to sell off Feds.

[Taimar]

Check adverse possession on that.

First, Adverse Possession is a dicey argument at best - but second, note where I say "living on." If your actions do not change the land from a wild and natural state, there is no possibility of a claim. Even if it does, it's a serious longshot and - in this case - impossible, as the Federal Government clearly OWNS THE LAND.



They are not completely exclusive.


In this case, yes they kind of are. We have a group of people with little or no understanding of the law who are angry about basically nebulous things who are interfering directly with the enforcement of laws they do not like. They are free to use their votes to change those laws but have instead chosen to brandish high powered firearms and threaten agents of the law who, as it happens, actually know the law they are talking about because that is their job.

The only conclusion of the actions displayed in conjunction with this incident is that if enough radical right wing militia guys don't like something, they can stop the law from enforcing that thing or protecting that thing. That is not at all democracy - that is mob rule in the street, and it is untenable in a society based on the rule of law.


After the period of 1877 to 1973 uncontested, it is his land. Statements about automatons are somewhat comical but irrelevant. They lost their rights after the 19th century ended. The Feds have as much right to sell off his cattle as Mexicans have rights to sell off Feds.

The law is quite clear that the Federal Government owns this land (and alot of other land in Nevada) and that this individual is trespassing on it. He can use it, like anybody else, if he pays the fees that are required. He is not. Ergo, the landlord has every right to seize any property he's left on it and auction it off, and hopefully, put him in jail if he continues to trespass.

As far as automatons, I have no other definition for people who are totally ignorant of the law but talk about it all the time and are willing to band together into a kind of frenzied mob wielding high-powered rifles to get their way "in the name of freedom" when it is so clearly "in the name of whatever we feel like." It isn't comical at all, it's deeply depressing. And since our country has had some experience with nutjob militias before, rather distressing. But not so distressing as the various far-right media outlets doling out the red meat as if there are no consequences.

[MR2 Fan]

As far as automatons, I have no other definition for people who are totally ignorant of the law but talk about it all the time and are willing to band together into a kind of frenzied mob wielding high-powered rifles to get their way "in the name of freedom" when it is so clearly "in the name of whatever we feel like." It isn't comical at all, it's deeply depressing. And since our country has had some experience with nutjob militias before, rather distressing. But not so distressing as the various far-right media outlets doling out the red meat as if there are no consequences.

Exactly. This is akin to someone losing a court case then holding the judge at gunpoint until they change their mind, the next step toward anarchy.

[LHutton]

First, Adverse Possession is a dicey argument at best - but second, note where I say "living on." If your actions do not change the land from a wild and natural state, there is no possibility of a claim. Even if it does, it's a serious longshot and - in this case - impossible, as the Federal Government clearly OWNS THE LAND.
After 137 years says who?




In this case, yes they kind of are. We have a group of people with little or no understanding of the law who are angry about basically nebulous things who are interfering directly with the enforcement of laws they do not like. They are free to use their votes to change those laws but have instead chosen to brandish high powered firearms and threaten agents of the law who, as it happens, actually know the law they are talking about because that is their job.
To put things in perspective, if you were on land for 4 generations, with inheritance passing it on, you would assume that land is yours. High powered firearms were only a counter-balance to those who first nabbed the land from the Mexicans bringing the same.



The only conclusion of the actions displayed in conjunction with this incident is that if enough radical right wing militia guys don't like something, they can stop the law from enforcing that thing or protecting that thing. That is not at all democracy - that is mob rule in the street, and it is untenable in a society based on the rule of law.
It's a large scale protest + civil disobedience, no different from a gay rights parade. Nobody wants a Ruby Ridge, they just want the Feds to walk away.



The law is quite clear that the Federal Government owns this land (and alot of other land in Nevada) and that this individual is trespassing on it. He can use it, like anybody else, if he pays the fees that are required. He is not. Ergo, the landlord has every right to seize any property he's left on it and auction it off, and hopefully, put him in jail if he continues to trespass.
Should have told him back in the 19th century after the Civil War rather than after the Vietnam War.



As far as automatons, I have no other definition for people who are totally ignorant of the law but talk about it all the time and are willing to band together into a kind of frenzied mob wielding high-powered rifles to get their way "in the name of freedom" when it is so clearly "in the name of whatever we feel like." It isn't comical at all, it's deeply depressing. And since our country has had some experience with nutjob militias before, rather distressing. But not so distressing as the various far-right media outlets doling out the red meat as if there are no consequences.
Taimar, all governments of the world are just mobs wielding high-powered weapons to get their way, occasionally tossing in the word 'freedom', when it is so clearly "in the name of what they feel like." It is comical, but I have ceased being depressed. And since countries are ran by nutjob militias anyway, all's fair. Consequences? Toss a coin, roll a dice, all be warned, it won't end nice.

[Taimar]

After 137 years says who?

If you have never gotten a deed to land you got from the government legitimately and the Government has never ceded any claim to said property, if the property is very clearly part of Federal territory, then the Federal Government owns the land. If you own it, produce a deed. Produce tax receipts. Don't have these things? That's probably because you do not own it and the Government does.


To put things in perspective, if you were on land for 4 generations, with inheritance passing it on, you would assume that land is yours.

With no paperwork, no proof, no estate taxation, no nothing? I think not. This is not a family heirloom rocking chair, it's a piece of land. There are civil laws that govern that transfer.


High powered firearms were only a counter-balance to those who first nabbed the land from the Mexicans bringing the same.

No, they were explicitly and specifically intended to be a physical threat to the safety of law enforcement officers who were acting in accordance with the law. "Law Enforcement" is called that for a reason - those people are there to enforce the law. And the law is quite clear.



It's a large scale protest + civil disobedience, no different from a gay rights parade.

When was the last time you saw 5,000 armed people at a Gay Pride Parade (or any Gay Rights event, ever, for that matter)? This is not to say that all demonstrations for civil rights have always been 100% peaceful. But they did not come at end of a gun barrel.

Did Gandhi use armed militias? Martin Luther King? Harvey Milk? We did not achieve equality under the law for Gay people by showing up with guns saying "You're not going to enforce these unfair laws or I'm going to start killing people." We demonstrated why the laws were unfair and in time, most rational people (and I'm specifically going to exclude American Right Wing Militias from this) realized that yes, those laws were unfair.

But there's nothing unfair about asking somebody to pay rent on land they are using that is not theirs and for which ownership and use permissions are quite clearly delineated.

There is -

A. nothing analogous here to a civil rights march of any kind and

B. nothing analogous here to civil disobedience. Bringing large quantities of firearms and threatening to shoot people if you don't get your way is not civil disobedience, it's a criminal temper tantrum.


Nobody wants a Ruby Ridge, they just want the Feds to walk away.

That doesn't seem to be the case when you gather hundreds, maybe thousands, of armed people in one place to deter law enforcement from doing it's job and then complain that you are besieged, nor does it seem to be the case when you call it a "battle" after you "win."



Taimar, all governments of the world are just mobs wielding high-powered weapons to get their way, occasionally tossing in the word 'freedom', when it is so clearly "in the name of what they feel like."

Some, yes. There is an element of truth there, but it's under a big layer of paranoia, among other things.

Governments are not all the same and run the gamut from very representative of their people's interests in a benevolent way to, say, North Korea or Eritrea - totally repressive regimes ruled by small cabals controlling all the force.

But we do not live in Eritrea or North Korea.

But in the United States, we choose our elected representatives and they make laws. We pay taxes to support the infrastructure of the world around us - not only physical infrastructure but the systems of business, commerce, and law enforcement that make our lives possible. We voluntarily agree to this because the alternative is essentially anarchy where whomever has the largest gun does whatever he/she pleases. In a society like this, compromises must be made. I must pay for things I do not want or do not agree with - I must give up the ability to do some things in exchange for the ability to continue doing others and to have the opportunity to do still more.

The "civil" in "civil disobedience" implies that it is non-violent and that it uses, in some respects, the existing legal system to effect change. It preserves, in many senses, the social compact of living in a civil society.

The problem here is that a group of people do not believe they should have to be part of that social compact - which is at the heart of all Democratic Governments - and they are willing to use force to do whatever they want, which is a detriment to the rest of us in many very serious ways.

Unless you are an anarchist, then you have to acknowledge the difference between a group of angry people on the street and an elected, representative government. There may be some semblance of similarity but no, the two are not analogous. Particularly given that the specific angry people in the street here seem more obsessed with "getting back at the government" for perceived oppression (it's unclear what real oppression they have ever experienced) than with any actual legal cause. And again, they talk and talk about the Constitution but seem never to have actually read it or studied it.

If your argument is "this is okay because governments are similar" or "this is okay it's just civil disobedience" then I'm sorry, you've failed to make a case for this kind of activity.

[LHutton]

If you have never gotten a deed to land you got from the government legitimately and the Government has never ceded any claim to said property, if the property is very clearly part of Federal territory, then the Federal Government owns the land. If you own it, produce a deed. Produce tax receipts. Don't have these things? That's probably because you do not own it and the Government does.
Why did inheritance documents pass?



With no paperwork, no proof, no estate taxation, no nothing? I think not. This is not a family heirloom rocking chair, it's a piece of land. There are civil laws that govern that transfer.
Turn that around. Where's the evidence from the other side?



No, they were explicitly and specifically intended to be a physical threat to the safety of law enforcement officers who were acting in accordance with the law. "Law Enforcement" is called that for a reason - those people are there to enforce the law. And the law is quite clear.
In the broad scale of things, the law is just the will of a criminal gang, who have provably taken several lands by same said force.



When was the last time you saw 5,000 armed people at a Gay Pride Parade (or any Gay Rights event, ever, for that matter)? This is not to say that all demonstrations for civil rights have always been 100% peaceful. But they did not come at end of a gun barrel.
They certainly weren't 100% peaceful. The folk at the Bundy ranch are just cutting a long point short by bringing guns. That's for sure.



Did Gandhi use armed militias? Martin Luther King? Harvey Milk? We did not achieve equality under the law for Gay people by showing up with guns saying "You're not going to enforce these unfair laws or I'm going to start killing people." We demonstrated why the laws were unfair and in time, most rational people (and I'm specifically going to exclude American Right Wing Militias from this) realized that yes, those laws were unfair.
Gandhi's eyes were blue, you know the rest. As I said, the guns are just there to speed up the process of realising what's fair.



But there's nothing unfair about asking somebody to pay rent on land they are using that is not theirs and for which ownership and use permissions are quite clearly delineated.
After 96 years uncontested and 137 years total occupation, who says it isn't theirs?



There is -

A. nothing analogous here to a civil rights march of any kind and

B. nothing analogous here to civil disobedience. Bringing large quantities of firearms and threatening to shoot people if you don't get your way is not civil disobedience, it's a criminal temper tantrum.
That's a matter of perspective. Same can be said the other way round too. Feds bringing ARs to a protest is a Federal temper tantrum.



That doesn't seem to be the case when you gather hundreds, maybe thousands, of armed people in one place to deter law enforcement from doing it's job and then complain that you are besieged, nor does it seem to be the case when you call it a "battle" after you "win."
People in concentration camps were just doing their job, WTF does that even mean? If you bring assault rifles to a dispute don't complain when the opposition brings them too.



Some, yes. There is an element of truth there, but it's under a big layer of paranoia, among other things.

Governments are not all the same and run the gamut from very representative of their people's interests in a benevolent way to, say, North Korea or Eritrea - totally repressive regimes ruled by small cabals controlling all the force.

But we do not live in Eritrea or North Korea.
Those are just very honest, up-front dictatorships, not pretending to be anything else.



But in the United States, we choose our elected representatives and they make laws. We pay taxes to support the infrastructure of the world around us - not only physical infrastructure but the systems of business, commerce, and law enforcement that make our lives possible. We voluntarily agree to this because the alternative is essentially anarchy where whomever has the largest gun does whatever he/she pleases. In a society like this, compromises must be made. I must pay for things I do not want or do not agree with - I must give up the ability to do some things in exchange for the ability to continue doing others and to have the opportunity to do still more.
The laws of commerce that allow people in banks to commit fraud (e.g. LIBOR etc.) without personal detriment? Largest gun does as he/she pleases, directed by largest wallet. Man on 6-figure salary at end of career with millions and millions in the bank.



The "civil" in "civil disobedience" implies that it is non-violent and that it uses, in some respects, the existing legal system to effect change. It preserves, in many senses, the social compact of living in a civil society.
Well it was civil. Nobody fired, did they?



The problem here is that a group of people do not believe they should have to be part of that social compact - which is at the heart of all Democratic Governments - and they are willing to use force to do whatever they want, which is a detriment to the rest of us in many very serious ways.
Nope, the problem here is that some sweaty old man has been paid to let the Chinese build a solar farm on land that has been occupied and managed by a US citizen for over a century and he is willing to use both force and farce to obtain his cash.



Unless you are an anarchist, then you have to acknowledge the difference between a group of angry people on the street and an elected, representative government. There may be some semblance of similarity but no, the two are not analogous. Particularly given that the specific angry people in the street here seem more obsessed with "getting back at the government" for perceived oppression (it's unclear what real oppression they have ever experienced) than with any actual legal cause. And again, they talk and talk about the Constitution but seem never to have actually read it or studied it.

If your argument is "this is okay because governments are similar" or "this is okay it's just civil disobedience" then I'm sorry, you've failed to make a case for this kind of activity.
Well now, would this be the same elected representative government who recognised an angry bunch of Ukranian people on the street over an elected, representative government? It's really wibbly-wobbly morality. Two choices only. People pick the least crap. May not really be representative.

[thesameguy]

I think Taimar hit the nail on the head. Let's give this guy the benefit of the doubt and the land. Then hit him for 137 years of unpaid property tax. See what happens then. Fairly sure it goes something something jail time.

[LHutton]

Perhaps not after a suit for harassment and property damage.

[Taimar]

Turn that around. Where's the evidence from the other side?

Unincorporated territory owned by the Government is just that. Owned by the government. You have to apply for a claim if it's 1870, and if you have no evidence to substantiate that claim later, then you may never have applied for that claim. Again, "Squatter's rights" are a spindly leg indeed to stand on here.

Cliven Bundy, btw, does actually have deeded property in this area. A 100-acre plot that is technically a melon farm. Nobody disputes that. But he does not own, or have any real claim, over the 750,000 acres of federal land he wants to claim.

Does 750,000 acres with no deed or documentation - an area almost the size of Rhode Island - sound like a familial homestead to you? Or an "free" area that could be realistically claimed by an Adverse Possession claim? Maybe I could claim the entire Bronx. That's modest by comparison.



In the broad scale of things, the law is just the will of a criminal gang, who have provably taken several lands by same said force.

:smh:

A deeply warped perspective of the concept of representational government.


They certainly weren't 100% peaceful.

No they weren't. But even the bonus army, which represented a real army and not a land-of-make-believe Johnny Horton one, didn't hold guns to the head of those they were seeking redress from.


The folk at the Bundy ranch are just cutting a long point short by bringing guns.

Not really. If the point is to illustrate that a law is ludicrously unfair, then the argument should be possible to make without having to hold a gun to somebody's head. If anything, the brandishing of firearms both short circuits the very concept of civil disobedience (because it is inherently not) and makes the cause look absurd by saying that the only way it can be dealt with is violent revolution against civil society (which is comprised of far more than one rancher's dubious cause for being a freeloader).

The same attitude - that only violent resistance and overthrow could achieve the desired goals - greatly hurt the Civil Rights movement in the late 1960s and early 1970s.


Gandhi's eyes were blue, you know the rest.

I'm afraid I don't know the rest. But if you'd like a detailed lecture on the history of India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh and the end of British Raj, then I'm sure I could recommend some good reading material.


As I said, the guns are just there to speed up the process of realising what's fair.

1. Except for the fact that they completely undermine the idea that this is anything other than a criminal gang attempting to destroy the rule of law that protects the other 99.9% of the country and

2. What's fair to whom? Is it "fair" to me that my tax dollars go to maintain and manage this land and this person gets to use it without paying the required fees? Is it "fair" to other ranchers who do obey the law? Is it "fair" to anybody who doesn't have a private army of thugs that this group of armed thugs can decide that some laws are unenforceable?

3. What if they decide that other things are "unfair" and don't like them either?

There's a reason we have rules and laws.


After 96 years uncontested and 137 years total occupation, who says it isn't theirs?

Just because you're a squatter and nobody's rousted you out doesn't mean you're not breaking the law.

Again, we're talking about 750,000 acres of federally owned land. This is not a few grazing fields, this is a vast territory.


That's a matter of perspective.

Not really. When you directly threaten people with guns, it's not civil disobedience, it's insurrection, criminal activity, or terrorism.



Same can be said the other way round too. Feds bringing ARs to a protest is a Federal temper tantrum.

I guess we're gonna go over this again, so, here we go. They call it "LAW ENFORCEMENT" because that is exactly what it is. If you do not comply with the law, you will get a nice visit from somebody from law enforcement. Now that may take many forms - police, attorneys, detectives, process servers - but eventually, you will feel a consequence for having violated the law. Living in a civil society means behaving yourself. The goal of law enforcement is to at once enforce criminal and civil laws while also making sure that basic rights are protected. But there must be some sort of stick, and to call that a "temper tantrum" of the like we see in this incident on the part of the right wing militias is ludicrous.


People in concentration camps were just doing their job,

And here we go with Godwin's law.

This comparison is absurd and not worth any further acknowledgement.


If you bring assault rifles to a dispute don't complain when the opposition brings them too.

It's a false equivalency in the extreme to suggest that a bunch of street thugs being upset about what, exactly? Imagined Tyrrany? Is somehow a more worthwhile use of firearms than the enforcement of basic laws. You might as well suggest that when gang members get guns, that's okay because the Police have them too, and the gang members feel that they should be allowed to deal drugs, engage in human trafficking, and other illegal activities openly and that the Police are "enfringing on their liberty" by stopping them.

Absurd.


Those are just very honest, up-front dictatorships, not pretending to be anything else.

And you believe that the United States is no different from these dictatorships? Wait, don't answer that.


The laws of commerce that allow people in banks to commit fraud (e.g. LIBOR etc.) without personal detriment?

I didn't say all laws were fair. But again, we're talking about the United States. The LIBOR is not regulated by the United States.


Largest gun does as he/she pleases, directed by largest wallet. Man on 6-figure salary at end of career with millions and millions in the bank.

In a lawless, anarchist society perhaps.


Well it was civil. Nobody fired, did they?

Only because the Feds decided to leave before somebody got killed, given that they were wildly outnumbered and, if one of them was fired upon, would have been forced to fire upon civilians, which they do not want to do. If the Feds had not left, it is likely that the situation would have escalated into bloodshed.



Nope, the problem here is that some sweaty old man has been paid to let the Chinese build a solar farm on land that has been occupied and managed by a US citizen for over a century and he is willing to use both force and farce to obtain his cash.

And now we get to the heart of the matter, where we once again have to raise the spectre of the easily-led automaton.

There is no solar farm project intended for that area. None.

ENN Mojave Energy LLC, a company with Chinese backing, wanted to purchase some land for a solar farm near Laughlin, it's true - though that land is nowhere near the area of Cliven Bundy's ranch. In 2011, this firm approached Harry Ried in terms of doing business with Nevada and possibly finding investors there. The proposed site in Clark County, near Laughlin, led to the involvement of Reid's son Rory - who helped to try and usher through a deal that would have seen the land sold by the government for less than it's appraised value if the power supply panned out. Agreements were drawn up for a 9,000 acre purchase.

However, it didn't.

ENN Mojave was unable to find reliable customers for the proposed solar power, and the project stalled. Ultimately, in 2013, they decided to can the deal altogether and so there will be no solar farm at all. The land was never purchased, the financing never completed, and now there's nothing at all here. Rory Ried was also involved in the potential use of some federal land for environmental development projects near Nellis AFB, which as you may know is in Las Vegas. Not in Cliven Bundy's neighborhood.

There is another solar plant in the general vicinity of the land that Bundy has been trespassing on, but it is partially on Maopa Tribal lands, and not in the disputed area. Nor does it have any connection to China. Still other potential power uses are being discussed for areas in the dry lakes - again, not in the disputed area.

It isn't all that hard to find this information.

So not only is there no solar farm project anywhere near Cliven Bundy's ranch, there isn't any Solar project at all anymore.

The fact is, this is about a guy who is trespassing on Federal land and not paying his land use fees.


Well now, would this be the same elected representative government who recognised an angry bunch of Ukranian people on the street over an elected, representative government? It's really wibbly-wobbly morality. Two choices only. People pick the least crap. May not really be representative.

Again, we do not live in Ukraine.

But if you want to split hairs here, before Ukraine deposed Mr. Yanukovych, most of his government resigned and many high level parliamentarians did as well, citing Yanukovych's over-reaching on his delegated powers. Once they did depose him, the followed the process outlined in their constitution and created a temporary government along the provisions provided by their pre-existing legal framework. They then organized a transitional government and set a date for elections - May 25th - when the people will get to vote on who they want to lead their government. I'm guessing it won't be the transitional authority or Mr. Yanukovych.

[Rikadyn]

In a lawless, anarchist society perhaps.


Anarchist society would not be lawless. There are still laws within anarchist society. it's simply a matter of how they are enforced is not through oppressive or coercive measures but rather attempts to reach a common consensus in most definitions of an anarchist society.

[Jason]

Alex :up:

[JoshInKC]

Alex :up:

QFT.

[MR2 Fan]

QFT.

QFMFT

[Crazed_Insanity]

US govt stole the land from American Indians, from Mexicans, surely they can steal it back from you if they want. Who ultimately has more fire power? Our right to bear arms can make it difficult for the federal govt, but you probably don't want the govt to end up branding you as a terrorist!

[FaultyMario]

Alex :up:


QFT.


QFMFT

GTXFWTFBBQ4LYFE!

[overpowered]

US govt stole the land from American Indians, from MexicansMexico got it from Spain when they won independence, with violence.

Spain took it from hundreds of native tribes from what is now the NW US to the southern tip of South America, with violence in many places.

Some native tribes took what they had from other native tribes, with violence.

It's the cycle of land conquest. It's history.

[FaultyMario]

...And comparing it to a liquor store robbery is offensive to say the least.

Acknowledging some wikipedia entry without giving some of the 19th century context of modernity, rapid market expansion, weakened institutions in Mexico, and the jurisdictional debate of the chichimeca (for both Mexico and the U.S.) that just speaks of armchair expertise. Thanks, but no thanks.

[neanderthal]

Alex :up:


QFT.


QFMFT


GTXFWTFBBQ4LYFE!

Well done Alex.

I get short tempered when dealing with people who are being deliberately obtuse.
Your patience and pedagougery in this instance is exemplary.

[mk]

Anarchist society
Don't combine very well.

Another:
we are all communists, only size differs.

[LHutton]

Thanks Taimar - that was a very well constructed and informative post and you've honestly told me a lot I didn't know. I concede the point on ownership.

However we perhaps need to think about why so many people are supporting this guy and why so many ranchers have been put out of business.

http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2014/04/why-clive-bundy-isnt-wrong-regarding-grazing-2938622.html


There have been a lot of people criticizing Clive Bundy because he did not pay his grazing fees for 20 years. The public is also probably wondering why so many other cowboys are supporting Mr. Bundy even though they paid their fees and Clive did not. What you people probably do not realize is that on every rancher’s grazing permit it says the following: “You are authorized to make grazing use of the lands, under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management and covered by this grazing permit, upon your acceptance of the terms and conditions of this grazing permit and payment of grazing fees when due.” The “mandatory” terms and conditions go on to list the allotment, the number and kind of livestock to be grazed, when the permit begins and ends, the number of active or suspended AUMs (animal units per month), etc. The terms and conditions also list specific requirements such as where salt or mineral supplements can be located, maximum allowable use of forage levels (40% of annual growth), etc., and include a lot more stringent policies that must be adhered to. Every rancher must sign this “contract” agreeing to abide by the TERMS AND CONDITIONS before he or she can make payment. In the early 90s, the BLM went on a frenzy and drastically cut almost every rancher’s permit because of this desert tortoise issue, even though all of us ranchers knew that cow and desert tortoise had co-existed for a hundred+ years. As an example, a family friend had his permit cut by 90%. For those of you who are non ranchers, that would be equated to getting your paycheck cut 90%. In 1976 there were approximately 52 ranching permittees in this area of Nevada. Presently, there are 3. Most of these people lost their livelihoods because of the actions of the BLM. Clive Bundy was one of these people who received extremely unfair and unreasonable TERMS AND CONDITIONS. Keep in mind that Mr. Bundy was required to sign this contract before he was allowed to pay. Had Clive signed on the dotted line, he would have, in essence, signed his very livelihood away. And so Mr. Bundy took a stand, not only for himself, but for all of us. He refused to be destroyed by a tyrannical federal entity and to have his American liberties and freedoms taken away. Also keep in mind that all ranchers financially paid dearly for the forage rights those permits allow – – not rights to the land, but rights to use the forage that grows on that land. Many of these AUMS are water based, meaning that the rancher also has a vested right (state owned, not federal) to the waters that adjoin the lands and allow the livestock to drink. These water rights were also purchased at a great price. If a rancher cannot show beneficial use of the water (he must have the appropriate number of livestock that drinks and uses that water), then he loses that water right. Usually water rights and forage rights go hand in hand. Contrary to what the BLM is telling you, they NEVER compensate a rancher for the AUMs they take away. Most times, they tell ranchers that their AUMS are “suspended,” but not removed. Unfortunately, my family has thousands of “suspended” AUMs that will probably never be returned. And so, even though these ranchers throughout the course of a hundred years invested thousands(and perhaps millions) of dollars and sacrificed along the way to obtain these rights through purchase from others, at a whim the government can take everything away with the stroke of a pen. This is the very thing that Clive Bundy single-handedly took a stand against. Thank you, Clive, from a rancher who considers you a hero.
On the issue of force, you have to draw a line somewhere. It's of little benefit protesting after everything has been taken and then getting beaten for protesting too long. This issue has been protested vigorously for 21 years and rather than compromise, the Federal government has continued forcing ranchers out of a business they've been in for centuries and invested copious amounts of time, effort and money in. It's an unnecessary abuse of power and without a standoff it would only drag on for another 20 years.


A deeply warped perspective of the concept of representational government.
Some would say it's a little warped to think it's a representational government, when only 50% of the electorate turn up to vote on lies, and corporate funding determines policy.


I didn't say all laws were fair. But again, we're talking about the United States. The LIBOR is not regulated by the United States.
That's a bit of a weak defence. You know as well as I that there are umpteen matters involving Citigroup and JPMorgan and many others, not least their deliberate involvement in the Madoff ponzi scheme. Mortgage securities fraud..... Forceclosure fraud etc. JPMorgan's main business is in fact fraud with a net return post illegality taxes, i.e. fines. Then you have Citigroup's mortgage insurance fraud. I could go on but it's a long list and nobody from either of those two outfits ended up in jail. Then there's the clause that excuses financial institutions from RICO charges for no visible reason other than a deliberate subversion of justice from the top down.

This ranch case is yet another case of laws not only being unfair, but deliberately so, with no attempt or intention to fix or compromise despite widespread loss of livelihood and protest. If you ignore massive protest and opposition at a state level for 20 years and it ends in violence/confrontation, you can't simply shrug off responsibility and go flinging around the T-word. It's really not often I'll bring up the 2nd, or militias, because honestly people throw them about far too often every time they have political disagreement of any kind. But heck, this is exactly why they're there. You have to admit that it's not too often that a large number of people with guns cower copious quantities of Federal agents into retreat. What needs to happen now is compromise, not argument, finger-pointing, dick-waving and tossing about T-words that have lost all meaning lately.

Why is the Federal government even involved in grazing and classifying endangered species? Being pro-Public Healthcare, I'm not really one for small government speeches but it seems to be over-reaching here.

I concede that I may have been wrong on that specific solar farm allegation, although I haven't seen the official documents, but you can forgive people for being ready to believe such an accusation and it has nothing to do with being an 'automaton'. Exponentially increasing grazing fees and sending hundreds of ranchers out of business is not only cruel but, on-the-face-of-it, stupid, unless you have an ulterior motive and intend to put the land to other use. In the latter case you should make clear your intentions to the public, compromise and compensate, rather than concocting some horseshit about tortoises that you've been killing/mass-murdering yourself:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/desert-tortoise-faces-threat-own-105104423.html;_ylt=A0SO8wOlVEdTOiYA3SVXNyoA;_ylu= X3oDMTEzY3MxNGQxBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDNgRjb2xvA2dxMQR2dG lkA1ZJUDMwNF8x

If you're inherently disingenuous you can't be surprised when the finger of suspicion points your way.



Again, we do not live in Ukraine.

But if you want to split hairs here, before Ukraine deposed Mr. Yanukovych, most of his government resigned and many high level parliamentarians did as well, citing Yanukovych's over-reaching on his delegated powers. Once they did depose him, the followed the process outlined in their constitution and created a temporary government along the provisions provided by their pre-existing legal framework. They then organized a transitional government and set a date for elections - May 25th - when the people will get to vote on who they want to lead their government. I'm guessing it won't be the transitional authority or Mr. Yanukovych.
And then used tanks against its own citizens in direct conflict with the constitution, except fortunately the soldiers in the tanks had more sense and they're now in the hands of opposing forces in the East, who, contrary to popular opinion are not all Russian, or ethnically Russian.

It also strikes me as a little odd that since the introduction of PRISM, coups have been manifesting left, right and centre. There's also considerable suggestion that the shooters in February were firing on police and demonstrators.

[Dicknose]

If you lease or pay for use rights, you are not owning it.
If you want land for your own use, without the owner saying "no longer", then buy land.

[LHutton]

If you lease or pay for use rights, you are not owning it.
If you want land for your own use, without the owner saying "no longer", then buy land.
There are regulations about how much you can increase fees by per annum, just as there are with rent. These regulations were sidestepped by introducing the endangered tortoise sham, tortoises which Federal authorities later 'euthanised' en-masse due to lack of funding before spending millions attacking the Bundy ranch after putting 98% of the ranchers in that area out of business.

The Federal government is not a private owner and shouldn't be treated as such. The lands they manage are public lands and the public should be consulted about plans for said lands in a candid and up-front manner. That hasn't been done here. It's clear they want the ranchers off the land, and have virtually achieved it, but no one has said why. Its underhand and deceitful and completely unbecoming of a government answerable to the people. In this case it's the people of Nevada who should be consulted, since it largely affects them, probably a good reason why this land should belong to the state of Nevada and not the federal government in the first place. The fact it owns a completely unprecedented 86% of the total land in Nevada is scarcely believable and hardly very progressive. And hiding a large political decision with huge repercussions behind a tortoise is hardly democratic, especially when the opposition is huge.

For some it's probably difficult to understand if you're not an actual rancher, so imagine if road and fuel tax was tripled and you were limited to 10 miles per day.

Historically, in the 19th century, there was also a promise that ranchers would be able to graze cattle on federal land in Nevada. Hence where the pre-emptive grazing rights argument manifested. The BLM didn't even exist at this time.

This is historically really complicated and it's being simplified a little too much. The Nevada constitution revision that added paramount allegiance was again penned at gun-point and there are issues surrounding the blockage of water rights by the BLM, which is actually a states' rights issue.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/04/12/The-Saga-of-Bundy-Ranch
http://patterico.com/2014/04/15/cliven-bundy-open-thread/

Anyway I'm probably dragging this one issue out a little too far. I've learned a bit and said my piece, I'm out.

[Fiat500]

Alex :up:


QFT.


QFMFT


GTXFWTFBBQ4LYFE!


Well done Alex.

I get short tempered when dealing with people who are being deliberately obtuse.
Your patience and pedagougery in this instance is exemplary.

+1

"Progressive democracy" has spoken.

[JoshInKC]

I'm not going to screw around with this too much, given that LH basically said he's stopping- but here's a little more context and information related to his last post, for everyone's edification.

"The BLM didn't even exist at this time," isn't a good argument. Pretty much everything that the BLM does was already being done by the federal gov't prior to the establishment of the BLM in '46- they simply consolidated, simplified, and codified said duties under a single entity at that point as part of a wider scale move to do the same to the entire government while shedding the dead weight of departments and bureaus no longer required after the cessation of the depression and the second world war.

The Constitution of Nevada was not "Penned at gun-point." Given the circumstances at the time, you can certainly accuse it of being rushed and including some content exclusively added to make a political point, but it was definately not "at gun-point."

Finally, both of those links in his last post say, roughly: "Bundy doesn't have a legal or even necessarily moral leg to stand on," unless you read the comments sections- Which are chock full of seccessionist, sovreign citizen, racist, and anti-semetic loons.

PS: Bringing up water rights regarding the western US is the path to madness... Nothing good can possibly come of it since as far as I know, no-one on here is a legal scholar specializing in the field, which is wildly complicated, often counterintuitive, and frankly insane. I took an entire class on the subject- got an A, and still don't feel anywhere near competent enough to even begin discussing it. Even thinking about it enough to write this paragraph has given me the beginnings of a migraine.

[FaultyMario]

https://www.princeton.edu/~mgilens/Gilens%20homepage%20materials/Gilens%20and%20Page/Gilens%20and%20Page%202014-Testing%20Theories%203-7-14.pdf


TL;DR

Multivariate analysis indicates that economic
elites and organized groups representing business
interests have substantial independent impacts
on U.S. government policy, while average citizens
and mass-based interest groups have little or
no independent influence.

Our results provide substantial s
upport for theories of Economic Elite Domination
and for theories of Biased Pluralism, but not for
theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or
Majoritarian Pluralism.


It turns out, in fact, that the preferences
of average citizens are positively and fairly
highly correlated, across issues, with the preferences of economic elites (see Table 2.) Rather
often, average citizens and affluent citizens (our
proxy for economic elites) want the same things
from government. This bivariate correlati
on affects how we should interpret our later
multivariate findings in terms of “winners” and “l
osers.”


How is this news? check the origin of the document.

Jason, I think you'll like the whole lecture; it explains a lot of the things you often post about on Fb.

[MR2 Fan]

OMG....Breitbart.com as a legitimate news source??

[Jason]

https://www.princeton.edu/~mgilens/Gilens%20homepage%20materials/Gilens%20and%20Page/Gilens%20and%20Page%202014-Testing%20Theories%203-7-14.pdf


TL;DR






How is this news? check the origin of the document.

Jason, I think you'll like the whole lecture; it explains a lot of the things you often post about on Fb.
I'll check it out. :up:

[LHutton]

https://www.princeton.edu/~mgilens/Gilens%20homepage%20materials/Gilens%20and%20Page/Gilens%20and%20Page%202014-Testing%20Theories%203-7-14.pdf


TL;DR

t turns out, in fact, that the preferences
of average citizens are positively and fairly
highly correlated, across issues, with the preferences of economic elites (see Table 2.) Rather
often, average citizens and affluent citizens (our
proxy for economic elites) want the same things
from government.
Without specifying what they actually agreed on, it's difficult to know if this means anything. E.g. minimum wage or law and order? Extent of globalisation or whether ice cream tastes good?

I quickly scanned the document for the answer to this but couldn't find it. Perhaps I missed it.

[FaultyMario]

And that... would come as no surprise.

[LHutton]

True. It is fairly typical of a social sciences paper in that regard.

[FaultyMario]

No, I meant it's typical of your snobby-ass web persona to ignore basic, easily available facts in order to elaborate your fallacious, pseudo scientific charades.

[LHutton]

No, I meant it's typical of your snobby-ass web persona to ignore basic, easily available facts in order to elaborate your fallacious, pseudo scientific charades.
Err... I asked a simple pertinent question. I don't have time to read the whole document on my weekend thanks and I definitely won't be reading it during the week. Perhaps next time when someone asks a question, you could be so kind as to respond with an answer as opposed to some snide elitist bullshit.

[LHutton]

My point was as follows:


This paper reports on an effort to do so, using a unique data set that includes measures of the key variables for 1,779 policy issues.
If 1700 of those issues were non-divisive, taken for granted, no-brainer issues like, a good education system, a low crime rate, effective policing, job creation, equality, stability, security, a strong economy etc., then you could have a high degree of correlation even if both sides were polar opposites on the remnant, highly divisive issues. Does it call on us to re-think our conception of a polarised political divide in a 2-party system, or just tell us that rich and poor people are generally sane?

We can have a civil conversation, all you have to do is try.

[FaultyMario]

I know.

[Crazed_Insanity]

Mexico got it from Spain when they won independence, with violence.

Spain took it from hundreds of native tribes from what is now the NW US to the southern tip of South America, with violence in many places.

Some native tribes took what they had from other native tribes, with violence.

It's the cycle of land conquest. It's history.

So for a bunch of mobs who own guns thinking that they can violently go against the Federal government and win... they're just kidding themselves.

They probably have a better chance thru legal means, but I kinda doubt that too.

Anyway, I find it amazing why it's necessary to debate about this so passionately. Hats off to LH and Taimar! ;)

[Mr Wonder]

Well, I'm bloody glad I went away for the weekend!
Alex has said everything I would have wanted to, only much more eloquently and with far more patience than I could have mustered.

I feel that the following is pettiness on my part, for which I apologise in advance, but I'm not having anyone think I "nut-swing" from Beck and O'Reilly.


They're both imbeciles, you can't suddenly nut-swing from their 'sound judgement' just because you agree with their stance. All news is news. It's always selective and biased and sometimes wrong, but Fox don't have exclusivity on that by any means.My point wasn't that I agree with them, but rather when two of the biggest right wing nutjobs from Fox, or exFox in Beck's case, who still have jobs talking to people on television after saying some downright abhorrent shit. When even they aren't prepared to get behind your sovereign citizen standing against government tyranny movement you might be a little far past crazy.

That is all.

[FaultyMario]

Err... I asked a simple pertinent question. I don't have time to read the whole document on my weekend thanks and I definitely won't be reading it during the week. Perhaps next time when someone asks a question, you could be so kind as to respond with an answer as opposed to some snide elitist bullshit.

And yet you questioned its relevance? Let me quote you on that:


it's difficult to know if this means anything

or even worse, went so far as to imply the invalidity of the entire Social Sciences corpus with your usual broadstroke characterizations:


True. It is fairly typical of a social sciences paper in that regard.

and then, once again, with total indifference of our collective memory, play the victim card:


when someone asks a question, you could be so kind as to respond with an answer as opposed to some snide elitist bullshit.

Sorry man, I can't give you "an answer" to your satisfaction. I reffuse to get in your sandbox under those terms. You are going to keep dealing with my snide elitist bullshit.

[LHutton]

And yet you questioned its relevance? Let me quote you on that:
As anyone is entitled to. I was hoping for an answer providing clarity, that's all.



or even worse, went so far as to imply the invalidity of the entire Social Sciences corpus with your usual broadstroke characterizations:
As a response to your snide remark:


And that... would come as no surprise.



and then, once again, with total indifference of our collective memory, play the victim card:
After this:


No, I meant it's typical of your snobby-ass web persona to ignore basic, easily available facts in order to elaborate your fallacious, pseudo scientific charades.



Sorry man, I can't give you "an answer"
Which is fine, perhaps just say that from the start.



I reffuse to get in your sandbox under those terms. You are going to keep dealing with my snide elitist bullshit.
I'm glad you've provided a surplus 'f' to make up for the fact that I don't give one.

[FaultyMario]

I know.

[LHutton]

So tell me, what do you know?

[MR2 Fan]

Oklahoma, in addition to trying to stop anyone from marrying entirely, to prevent gay marriage, then made it illegal for any city or county to raise minimum wage is now going to charge people for using solar power.....truly fucking incredible.

[LHutton]

Oklahoma, in addition to trying to stop anyone from marrying entirely, to prevent gay marriage, then made it illegal for any city or county to raise minimum wage is now going to charge people for using solar power.....truly fucking incredible.
Unfortunately solar power does actually cause voltage problems on the distribution network. Whilst distributed generation is an excellent idea for reducing carbon emissions, the electricity distribution network wasn't built with it in mind. All generators have to pay connection and use of system charges.

[Jason]

I understand taxing solar, if said solar is connected to the existing power grid. There are maintenance costs involved, I imagine. That being said, I assume the taxes are higher than they need to be, and are implemented by folks connected to the fossil fuel industry.

[21Kid]

Except for the fact that you are already making them money by providing electricity. That should cover any maintenance costs, I would think.

[LHutton]

Except for the fact that you are already making them money by providing electricity. That should cover any maintenance costs, I would think.
I don't know what the setup is in the US but in the UK it's divided up as follows:

Generators
Transmission Network Operators (TNOs)
Distribution Network Operators (DNOs)
Suppliers
http://www.iop.org/education/higher_education/fellowship/file_43354.pdf

The cost impact is mainly on the DNOs. In the UK, solar homes are paid a guaranteed amount for the electricity they put back onto the grid but that's guaranteed by the government as an incentive. There is a lot of talk about distributors actually placing a fee on solar homes too, whether that will affect new or existing customers is tricky to know. There is some fairly major research being conducted by DNOs in conjunction with universities to assess the best method of modernising the network and tariffs to improve the roll-out of low carbon technology. Some of it involves new network technology like Enhanced Automatic Voltage Control, Real Time Thermal Rating, Electricity Storage, Demand Side Response and Active Network Management. The research is government-funded, so there is a cost involved upfront and during the roll-out itself.

[thesameguy]

Yeah, unfortunately there are real reasons to place fees on residential solar - but I think Jason is right, the folks putting those numbers together are at least slightly disingenuous in their approach.

[21Kid]

I guess I just don't understand...

If you're providing electricity to the power company for free that they can charge other people for... how is that not enough to offset any 'fees' they would need to charge you for using their infrastructure?

Unless the electric company is paying you for the electricity, I suppose, and taking a fee out of that.

It just seems wrong to get charged a fee for providing energy. Why not keep your solar disconnected from the grid then to avoid paying?

[Crazed_Insanity]

I'm assuming the taxes and fees charged will not be higher than the amount the electric company pays you for using your solar energy. If it is indeed that ridiculous, then yeah, you'll probably be better off not connected to the grid with your solar power.

[Rikadyn]

I'm assuming the taxes and fees charged will not be higher than the amount the electric company pays you for using your solar energy. If it is indeed that ridiculous, then yeah, you'll probably be better off not connected to the grid with your solar power.

except a lot of places will still charge you a fee for not being connected

[Jason]

I guess I just don't understand...

If you're providing electricity to the power company for free that they can charge other people for... how is that not enough to offset any 'fees' they would need to charge you for using their infrastructure?

Unless the electric company is paying you for the electricity, I suppose, and taking a fee out of that.

It just seems wrong to get charged a fee for providing energy. Why not keep your solar disconnected from the grid then to avoid paying?

It's difficult to be legitimately disconnected, and to have power at all times. You need to have proper ways to store the energy, and also ways of getting energy when the sun isn't out. I don't know what's so hard to understand... the energy industry is big in this country, they have a lot of hands in a lot of pockets, you either pay for fossil fuel, or you pay a fee to use solar. Don't like it? Move to a country that hates freedom. :)

[Mr Wonder]

In a turn of events shocking absolutely no one, idiot criminal is also a lying liar.


Clark County property records show Cliven Bundy's parents moved from Bundyville, Arizona and bought the 160 acre ranch in 1948 from Raoul and Ruth Leavitt.

Water rights were transferred too, but only to the ranch, not the federally managed land surrounding it. Court records show Bundy family cattle didn't start grazing on that land until 1954.

BLM founded 1946. Even his claim to have been there before the BLM was founded is bullshit.

[LHutton]

I guess I just don't understand...

If you're providing electricity to the power company for free that they can charge other people for... how is that not enough to offset any 'fees' they would need to charge you for using their infrastructure?

Unless the electric company is paying you for the electricity, I suppose, and taking a fee out of that.

It just seems wrong to get charged a fee for providing energy. Why not keep your solar disconnected from the grid then to avoid paying?
Put simply because you're providing it at the wrong time of day. Solar power without storage does nothing to help with the 4-8pm winter load peak in December and January and provides a shit load power when nobody wants it, which wreaks havoc with voltage gradients on LV Feeders and the power fed back through HV/LV transformers. Storage could be placed on the network to help counteract the problem but large batteries aren't cheap and at present most studies are showing that they aren't commercially viable without massive subsidisation across the industry. Batteries also cause legal problems because it would mean that DNOs would be trading electricity, at the moment the law prevents this.

If the truth be known, DNOs would love people to disconnect their solar power. As for the green energy companies who are encouraging people to fit voltage lowering devices along with solar, they'd willfully strangle them.

I was actually misleading you when I said the government pays the feed-in tariffs, it's the suppliers but it is mandated by law.
http://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/Generating-energy/Getting-money-back/Feed-In-Tariffs-scheme-FITs#about

The suppliers are no more than electricity supermarkets, they do nothing to convey the electrical power from generator to doorstep and pay DNOs and TNOs a fee for transit, and that fee depends on how complicated the transit is, network investment etc. If load balancing and power quality becomes a major issue, the fee increases and so electricity costs increase across the board. Now the social issue is whether you make everyone pay for that, including vulnerable people, or just solar homes, which tend to be owned by people who are fairly well off.



It's difficult to be legitimately disconnected, and to have power at all times.
Also true.


I don't know what's so hard to understand... the energy industry is big in this country, they have a lot of hands in a lot of pockets, you either pay for fossil fuel, or you pay a fee to use solar. Don't like it? Move to a country that hates freedom. :)
The problem isn't with how the electricity is generated, it's with where it's generated. The grid is setup for centralised generation not distributed generation. Put simply, it starts with fat cables and gradually moves to thinner cables as you progress from 132-400kV to 66kV to 33kV to 11kV to 400/415V. You also have a small voltage drop within each voltage segment due to cables losses. When you start generating at the wrong end of the network, you then need to increase cable sizes at the wrong end of the network and you have a situation where you suddenly have a high voltage at the end of an LV Feeder, which wants to drive electricity in the wrong direction unless you compensate with EAVC techniques. One solar home isn't a problem, or two, but what you tend to get is something called clustering, where a series of homes very close together all tend to get solar.

Generators sell to suppliers, TNOs and DNOs are paid by suppliers and generators for conveying the power regardless of where it comes from. There really is no hidden agenda here, it's just a simple matter of physics. There is no problem with centralised solar, wind or tidal but if you want to setup a network for distributed generation, there's cost involved whether you have solar panels or you're burning diesel or coal.

[LHutton]

In a turn of events shocking absolutely no one, idiot criminal is also a lying liar.



BLM founded 1946. Even his claim to have been there before the BLM was founded is bullshit.
It's a bit much to call someone defending their livelihood a criminal. Since the desert tortoise issue arose, ranchers had their income cut by 90% whilst still paying higher fees since 1993. It's not that they can pay and are being greedy, if that were the case all 52 ranchers in that area would be still in business but complaining about it. As it stands all but 3 of them are out of business and those 3 would be in danger too if they were adhering to the law. So the outcome of this desert tortoise isn't more public money, it's less. Aside from that it's a fabrication, it isn't endangered and certainly isn't endangered by cattle. If anything the declining numbers could be said to be correlated with reduced cattle grazing starting in 1934. Why? Because they eat cow dung.

https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/rangelands/article/viewFile/10776/10049

When purse strings became tight, pretty much everything to do with the protection of this species that cost money was killed, including several hundred actual tortoises only last year.

So whilst lying has taken place, it's taken place on both sides. If there is a legitimate desire to get ranchers off this land, the political issues should be discussed. The federal government are not private land owners and any decisions affecting land use are a matter for the public to determine during elections. As it stands, these issues haven't even seen the light of day. That isn't how a democracy works.

There is also the issue of this law being broken:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/43/661
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/30/51

Private rights in federal lands were recognized in an 1866 water law. It says, "… whenever, by priority of possession, rights to the use of water have vested and accrued, and the same are recognized and acknowledged by the local customs, laws, and the decisions of courts, the possessors and owners of such vested rights shall be maintained and protected in the same."

That Act is old, but every federal land law since then says, "Nothing in this Act shall be construed to impair any vested right in existence on the effective date of this Act."

Bundy actually is a bit of an idiot because he has fought the law on all the wrong issues. He does have a case, along with many other ranchers, it just isn't the one he's making.

As I've said there is a reason why this 'criminal' has so much support:
http://nj.npri.org/nj98/04/haas1.htm

[21Kid]

Put simply because you're providing it at the wrong time of day. Solar power without storage does nothing to help with the 4-8pm winter load peak in December and January and provides a shit load power when nobody wants it, which wreaks havoc with voltage gradients on LV Feeders and the power fed back through HV/LV transformers. Storage could be placed on the network to help counteract the problem but large batteries aren't cheap and at present most studies are showing that they aren't commercially viable without massive subsidisation across the industry. Batteries also cause legal problems because it would mean that DNOs would be trading electricity, at the moment the law prevents this. I could have sworn that the peak load times were during business work hours when manufacturing and business offices are running at full capacity. Not when I'm at home watching television. :shrug:


It's difficult to be legitimately disconnected, and to have power at all times. You need to have proper ways to store the energy, and also ways of getting energy when the sun isn't out. I don't know what's so hard to understand... the energy industry is big in this country, they have a lot of hands in a lot of pockets, you either pay for fossil fuel, or you pay a fee to use solar. Don't like it? Move to a country that hates freedom. :) If they're paying for the electricity that I am sending them and taking a fee out of that for being connected to the grid, I understand that.
But, if there's a net loss, why would I connect my solar to the grid? I would just use it for my own personal use and keep the current grid connection for incoming power only.

[LHutton]

I could have sworn that the peak load times were during business work hours when manufacturing and business offices are running at full capacity. Not when I'm at home watching television. :shrug:
What about when you're at home watching TV, whilst cooking and making a cup of tea, whilst someone is ironing and another person is using the computer and a fourth person is watching a second TV? Also would it surprise you if I said household electricity consumption has more than doubled since 1970? Large manufacturing businesses often aren't supplied from the LV network, they're supplied directly from HV. Business offices don't really use any more power than the people in them would if at home, maybe even less. The 4-8pm slot is just when everyone gets home, cooks, cleans and irons simultaneously, except in poorer areas, where the use is more uniform, with a small peak roughly when Jeremy Kyle starts (no I'm not joking). One of the things being looked at is tariff changes to charge people more for using electricity between 4pm and 8pm but providing it cheaper outside those times.


If they're paying for the electricity that I am sending them and taking a fee out of that for being connected to the grid, I understand that.
But, if there's a net loss, why would I connect my solar to the grid? I would just use it for my own personal use and keep the current grid connection for incoming power only.
http://www.naturalnews.com/036194_solar_system_grid-tie_power_grid.html
http://www.solarpaneltalk.com/showthread.php?7897-Utilizing-PV-solar-power-when-the-grid-is-down&p=52501&viewfull=1#post52501

[neanderthal]

In LA, 4- 8 pm, most people are on the freeways at some point, commuting home.

I've always understood that peak electricity usage was during business hours; schools, offices, industry all sucking away at the power teat. With the popularity of LED/ LCD tvs and florescent lights, I cant image four bulbs and three tvs being on in a home would suck up that much energy. But, what do I know, i'm single and live alone. My dinner is usually cold, or snacks. I do laundry at 11pm to avoid having to wait for other people.

[Crazed_Insanity]

Yeah, electric company at LA offer incentives/discounts for homeowners who give them the ability to turn off your A/C compressors remotely during summer day time. So I'm assuming in CA, peak usage occurs during hot summer afternoons where air conditioners are at full blast at homes, offices and malls, etc. Extra solar panels can definitely help alleviate the load.

[LHutton]

In LA, 4- 8 pm, most people are on the freeways at some point, commuting home.

I've always understood that peak electricity usage was during business hours; schools, offices, industry all sucking away at the power teat. With the popularity of LED/ LCD tvs and florescent lights, I cant image four bulbs and three tvs being on in a home would suck up that much energy. But, what do I know, i'm single and live alone. My dinner is usually cold, or snacks. I do laundry at 11pm to avoid having to wait for other people.
Between 4 and 8pm there's a bit of both in the UK.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lcurve.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_demand

Column B in the spreadsheets is half hours from midnight, so 32-40 is 4-8pm. INDO = Initial Demand Outturn.
http://www2.nationalgrid.com/UK/Industry-information/Electricity-transmission-operational-data/Data-explorer/
http://www.nationalgridus.com/niagaramohawk/business/rates/5_load_profile.asp

Aside from this, load on the HV grid doesn't actually present as big a problem as load on the LV grid.



Yeah, electric company at LA offer incentives/discounts for homeowners who give them the ability to turn off your A/C compressors remotely during summer day time. So I'm assuming in CA, peak usage occurs during hot summer afternoons where air conditioners are at full blast at homes, offices and malls, etc. Extra solar panels can definitely help alleviate the load.
I was looking at this from a UK perspective. We don't have such heat issues.:lol: We're trialling similar things (DSR) for washing machines I think.

[thesameguy]

BLM founded 1946. Even his claim to have been there before the BLM was founded is bullshit.

... unless of course he was there in the 1800s but didn't pay the Leavitts for 50 or 60 years.

Maybe the Leavitts were family somehow?

[MR2 Fan]

Militia backed Rancher shows his true colors


"I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro," Bundy said, "and in front of that government house the door was usually open and the older people and the kids – and there is always at least a half a dozen people sitting on the porch – they didn't have nothing to do. They didn't have nothing for their kids to do. They didn't have nothing for their young girls to do.

"And because they were basically on government subsidy, so now what do they do?" Bundy continued. "They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton. And I've often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn't get no more freedom. They got less freedom."- Cliven Bundy, the recent GOP and Fox News Darling

[21Kid]

oh... I'm shocked...

no. really. I am. :|

[thesameguy]

What was the context for that statement? I'm just curious what subject he was running his mouth on that lead to that gem.

[FaultyMario]

I'm going to suppose it had something to do with gay marriage. Or not enough creationism in Cosmos.

[Freude am Fahren]

The backpedaling on the right is hilarious.

[LHutton]

Shocking statement but it doesn't relate to the original stand. It just shows that you shouldn't listen to grandpa too much.

[LHutton]

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-breaks-promise--again--to-commemorate-armenian--genocide-155128834.html


During the 2008 campaign, Barack Obama could not have been clearer about what he thought of the mass killings of Armenians at the hands of Ottoman Turks in 1915.

"My firmly held conviction (is) that the Armenian Genocide is not an allegation, a personal opinion, or a point of view, but rather a widely documented fact supported by an overwhelming body of historical evidence," he said in a statement. "The facts are undeniable," Obama wrote. "As President I will recognize the Armenian Genocide."

Once in office, though? Not so much. Not at all, in fact.

President Obama on Thursday called the slaughter “one of the worst atrocities of the 20th century.” But for the sixth straight year, he did not use the word “genocide” — a move that Armenians would have cheered but would also have risked profoundly angering Turkey, a crucial NATO ally.

[FaultyMario]

That's been on wikipedia since like 2009. Your point being?

Head of State forced to put privately-held convictions aside and act stately in public events.

It does sound like headline of the year. not.

[thesameguy]

By virtue of the fact it shouldn't be, it is. You know?

[Crazed_Insanity]

Why is the word "genocide" so critical? Obama as president did at least called it one of the worst atrocities of 20th century... doesn't that mean anything? It's not like president Obama has pretended nothing happened in order to please the Turks.

Why would the word "genocide" all of a sudden please the Armenians and anger the Turks?

[thesameguy]

That word carries a lot of weight - it adds a special kind of intent behind an action. Someone being killed is one thing, someone being murdered is another. Suggesting that killing a bunch of people was in fact an attempt at genocide is Serious Fucking Business, and having such an attempt on your permanent record is not something a modern country wants. It makes complete sense it'd be a touchy issue, and the president is stuck in a tough place between not upsetting an ally and acknowledging an atrocity for it what it probably was. And I say "probably" because none of us were there, and it's impossible to know with certainty what the point of the action was... even if the point seems obvious in the context of history. We'll never get inside the heads of the people who were in charge - and that minor detail is exactly what Obama is (smartly, IMHO) hiding behind.

[FaultyMario]

billi, here (http://genocidewatch.net/genocide-2/12-ways-to-deny-genocide/).

[Taimar]

Shocking statement but it doesn't relate to the original stand. It just shows that you shouldn't listen to grandpa too much.

Actually, it relates very deeply to the "original stand" in the sense that the entire basis for this whole affair goes back to other issues, and as some have pointed out in the last 24 hours, that this person waging this fight should make those comments should come as absolutely no surprise. Far from being the ramblings of old grandpa, the deep racism expressed by Mr. Bundy is very, very relevant to his stance as a whole and is a key part of the philosophy that has led him where he is and to this standoff.

Mr. Bundy has repeatedly made reference to "county sheriffs" being the only legitimate authority he will recognize, and has said many times over now that he does not recognize the authority of the federal government. Many times. In very clear and deliberate language. He has specifically called for "County Sheriffs" to disarm the Federal Government. Many of the militia types who showed up to this standoff echoed these sentiments, particularly a group called Oath Keepers. Mr. Bundy considers himself a "sovereign citizen" - something you'll hear alot about if you scratch the surface of the militia movement.

And that's because the opposition to the government here is not specific to this set of circumstances, it's general, and it comes from a historic place and a political (some would say anarchist) ideology passed down through American history via the extreme far right since reconstruction (and arguably since even earlier).

Much of this ideology stems from the resentment that White Supremacists in the South felt about having Federal armies occupy the Southern states after they were defeated in the civil war. Those armies were there to keep the peace and to ensure that the Black population was not immediately re-enslaved, and that the rebellion did not re-ignite. Indeed, the Reconstruction era saw a flowering of Black elected officials, something some (not all) Southerners found absolutely abhorrent. They did not believe that these people were entitled to any political rights, or any rights at all, and had fought a war to preserve their dominance over this economic resource. They did not recognize the authority of the United States Government in such matters. They believed that they should decide how their communities were run - and that Blacks shouldn't be a part of running anything, and they resented Federal attempts to equalize political representation and the protection of equal rights under the law for all persons.

You may recall that the 2000 Presidential Election came down to the Supreme Court's decision to end a recount in Florida - an unusual situation involving an electoral dispute. This is not unprecidented. In 1876, a similar situation arose in which two candidates - Samuel Tilden, the Democrat, and Rutherford B. Hayes, the Republican, both lacked a clear electoral majority due to voter fraud in South Carolina, Florida, and Louisiana and the disqualification of electors from Oregon. President Grant and members of the Supreme Court created an electoral committee that ultimately gave victory to Hayes, but at the price of deep concessions on Reconstruction to the Democrats, who were primarily dominant in the South.

This led, in 1878, to the Posse Comitatus act, and the end of the Force Acts put in place under President Grant. This rollback of Federal involvement and the removal of Federal troops from the South effectively ended Reconstruction. Immediately upon this pullback, the system of Jim Crow laws was implemented, ending any real Black self-representation and ensuring another 80 years of separate, humiliating, race-based social structure and, in many ways, allowing other states to make it okay to have such practices even if they weren't part of the south. Here in Washington state there were Jim Crow laws too, far far away from anywhere anybody thought of during the Civil war.

Of course, if you speak latin, then you know that "Posse Comitatus" means "Power of the county" or, in English tradition, "County Sheriffs" - authorities appointed by local citizens.

Now, after all that happened Jim Crow was the law of the land for a long time, and American political debates tended to hinge on urban vs. rural, native born vs. immigrant for a long time, during the agrarian and progressive movements and long after. But in 1915, a filmmaker named D.W. Griffith, the son of a Confederate Soldier, made a movie called "Birth of a Nation" that, among other things, depicted the Ku Klux Klan as defenders of liberty against Federal meddling and against the influx of political representation for Black Southerners by Black Southerners - who were depicted in this movie in ways too unsavory for me to describe here.

"Birth of a Nation" is only a movie. But it was the first big blockbuster movie ever. Do you remember Titanic and Avatar? Imagine a movie that was bigger, culturally and monetarily, than those two movies combined and which presented as fact a very warped view of history to a public unaccustomed to interpreting what they see on a screen (movies were then still a novelty). Griffith later deeply regretted what his romaniticized tale of the KKK had done - it tainted his career and his next movie was an eponymous treatise on it's subject - Intolerance.

That movie spawned the second, much larger era of the KKK as a political force and at one point almost 2% of the American Population counted itself as KKK members. Today we think of the KKK as being a group primarily based in the South and in rural areas, but by 1925 the KKK was a national organization with presences in New York City and Los Angeles. The Klan had enough influence to sway the 1924 Presidential nomination of William Gibbs McAdoo.

It is the romantic view of White Supremacists formed by Birth of a Nation and the subsequent boom in KKK membership and sympathy for those ideas that lead to the creation of something called the Christian Identity movement - which is at the foundation of Today's Militia movements. It is in the crucible of the 1920s KKK movement that men like Wesley Swift and William Potter Gale formed their beliefs - that the Government was illegitimate, that Whites and Christians were being undermined by it, and that foreign elements were always looking to bring down the country. Foreign elements like say, 1928 Presidential Candidate Al Smith, who was Catholic. Because Catholics too, were at that time regarded as "enemies" of Protestant Christianity.

In 1957, as our country was beginning to put a formal end to Segregation and Jim Crow, President Eisenhower sent Federal Troops to Little Rock, Arkansas to protect the Little Rock nine, the first students of color to attend previously Whites-only Little Rock Central High School. Federal Troops were required many times over the next decade to enforce equal protection and equality under the law in a variety of places all over the country. This development obviously enraged people who do not believe that the Federal government has any authority in these matters.

It is William Potter Gale who founded a group called Posse Comitatus in the 1960s, and this group first popularized the notion of "sovereign citizens" and the idea that only the County Sheriff - really only posses of locals who band together to enforce the law how they see fit - "local authorities" if you will, have even any chance of having any legal authority in our country. That the Federal Government has no right to do anything, and isn't legitimate and doesn't even exist. It's founding was a direct response to Federal Intervention in ending Segregation.

Undercurrents of anti-tax, anti-minority, anti-government sentiment run deep in our history. But with increasingly few places to turn as Antisemitism, Anti-Catholicism, and Race-based overt bias, discrimination, and violence became increasingly unpalatable in the 20th century, particularly after the Civil Rights movment, many people with these anti-tax, anti-minority, anti-urban leanings fell in with groups that ultimately became part of the militia movement. They don't recognize the Government, and that is their primary claim - but not far beneath the surface are much darker views.

This sentiment extends subtly much deeper into right wing politics than many people are willing to admit - for example where once conservative forces bullied Catholic Al Smith with all sorts of crazy allegations about Catholics, they now bully "Muslim" Barack Obama - where once they complained about Irish, Italian, and Jewish immigrants they now complain about Mexican, Honduran, and Chinese immigrants. There's far more to that, but for now, let's just focus on the issue at hand.

In 1983, one member of Posse Comitatus, Gordon Kahl, who had refused to pay taxes or show up for court or abide by his parole terms, was met in a small North Dakota town by two Federal Marshalls who came to arrest him for violating his parole (he had been jailed in the 1970s for tax evasion). Mr. Kahl and his son shot both law enforcement officers dead and fled to Arkansas. After they were found, Kahl killed another law enforcement officer - Lawrence County Sheriff Gene Matthews - and was killed in the ensuing shootout.

And that is the alternative situation that could have arisen at Cliven Bundy's ranch, only instead of one or two guys, it would have been hundreds.

The voicing of Cliven Bundy's racist beliefs shouldn't surprise you, because they are long-held beliefs that underpin the Militia and Sovereign Citizen movements.

[LHutton]

Actually, it relates very deeply to the "original stand" in the sense that the entire basis for this whole affair goes back to other issues, and as some have pointed out in the last 24 hours, that this person waging this fight should make those comments should come as absolutely no surprise. Far from being the ramblings of old grandpa, the deep racism expressed by Mr. Bundy is very, very relevant to his stance as a whole and is a key part of the philosophy that has led him where he is and to this standoff.

Mr. Bundy has repeatedly made reference to "county sheriffs" being the only legitimate authority he will recognize, and has said many times over now that he does not recognize the authority of the federal government. Many times. In very clear and deliberate language. He has specifically called for "County Sheriffs" to disarm the Federal Government. Many of the militia types who showed up to this standoff echoed these sentiments, particularly a group called Oath Keepers. Mr. Bundy considers himself a "sovereign citizen" - something you'll hear alot about if you scratch the surface of the militia movement.



Much of this ideology stems from the resentment that White Supremacists in the South felt about having Federal armies occupy the Southern states after they were defeated in the civil war. Those armies were there to keep the peace and to ensure that the Black population was not immediately re-enslaved, and that the rebellion did not re-ignite. Indeed, the Reconstruction era saw a flowering of Black elected officials, something some (not all) Southerners found absolutely abhorrent. They did not believe that these people were entitled to any political rights, or any rights at all, and had fought a war to preserve their dominance over this economic resource. They did not recognize the authority of the United States Government in such matters. They believed that they should decide how their communities were run - and that Blacks shouldn't be a part of running anything, and they resented Federal attempts to equalize political representation and the protection of equal rights under the law for all persons.

You may recall that the 2000 Presidential Election came down to the Supreme Court's decision to end a recount in Florida - an unusual situation involving an electoral dispute. This is not unprecidented. In 1876, a similar situation arose in which two candidates - Samuel Tilden, the Democrat, and Rutherford B. Hayes, the Republican, both lacked a clear electoral majority due to voter fraud in South Carolina, Florida, and Louisiana and the disqualification of electors from Oregon. President Grant and members of the Supreme Court created an electoral committee that ultimately gave victory to Hayes, but at the price of deep concessions on Reconstruction to the Democrats, who were primarily dominant in the South.

This led, in 1878, to the Posse Comitatus act, and the end of the Force Acts put in place under President Grant. This rollback of Federal involvement and the removal of Federal troops from the South effectively ended Reconstruction. Immediately upon this pullback, the system of Jim Crow laws was implemented, ending any real Black self-representation and ensuring another 80 years of separate, humiliating, race-based social structure and, in many ways, allowing other states to make it okay to have such practices even if they weren't part of the south. Here in Washington state there were Jim Crow laws too, far far away from anywhere anybody thought of during the Civil war.

Of course, if you speak latin, then you know that "Posse Comitatus" means "Power of the county" or, in English tradition, "County Sheriffs" - authorities appointed by local citizens.

Now, after all that happened Jim Crow was the law of the land for a long time, and American political debates tended to hinge on urban vs. rural, native born vs. immigrant for a long time, during the agrarian and progressive movements and long after. But in 1915, a filmmaker named D.W. Griffith, the son of a Confederate Soldier, made a movie called "Birth of a Nation" that, among other things, depicted the Ku Klux Klan as defenders of liberty against Federal meddling and against the influx of political representation for Black Southerners by Black Southerners - who were depicted in this movie in ways too unsavory for me to describe here.

"Birth of a Nation" is only a movie. But it was the first big blockbuster movie ever. Do you remember Titanic and Avatar? Imagine a movie that was bigger, culturally and monetarily, than those two movies combined and which presented as fact a very warped view of history to a public unaccustomed to interpreting what they see on a screen (movies were then still a novelty). Griffith later deeply regretted what his romaniticized tale of the KKK had done - it tainted his career and his next movie was an eponymous treatise on it's subject - Intolerance.

That movie spawned the second, much larger era of the KKK as a political force and at one point almost 2% of the American Population counted itself as KKK members. Today we think of the KKK as being a group primarily based in the South and in rural areas, but by 1925 the KKK was a national organization with presences in New York City and Los Angeles. The Klan had enough influence to sway the 1924 Presidential nomination of William Gibbs McAdoo.

It is the romantic view of White Supremacists formed by Birth of a Nation and the subsequent boom in KKK membership and sympathy for those ideas that lead to the creation of something called the Christian Identity movement - which is at the foundation of Today's Militia movements. It is in the crucible of the 1920s KKK movement that men like Wesley Swift and William Potter Gale formed their beliefs - that the Government was illegitimate, that Whites and Christians were being undermined by it, and that foreign elements were always looking to bring down the country. Foreign elements like say, 1928 Presidential Candidate Al Smith, who was Catholic. Because Catholics too, were at that time regarded as "enemies" of Protestant Christianity.

In 1957, as our country was beginning to put a formal end to Segregation and Jim Crow, President Eisenhower sent Federal Troops to Little Rock, Arkansas to protect the Little Rock nine, the first students of color to attend previously Whites-only Little Rock Central High School. Federal Troops were required many times over the next decade to enforce equal protection and equality under the law in a variety of places all over the country. This development obviously enraged people who do not believe that the Federal government has any authority in these matters.

It is William Potter Gale who founded a group called Posse Comitatus in the 1960s, and this group first popularized the notion of "sovereign citizens" and the idea that only the County Sheriff - really only posses of locals who band together to enforce the law how they see fit - "local authorities" if you will, have even any chance of having any legal authority in our country. That the Federal Government has no right to do anything, and isn't legitimate and doesn't even exist. It's founding was a direct response to Federal Intervention in ending Segregation.

Undercurrents of anti-tax, anti-minority, anti-government sentiment run deep in our history. But with increasingly few places to turn as Antisemitism, Anti-Catholicism, and Race-based overt bias, discrimination, and violence became increasingly unpalatable in the 20th century, particularly after the Civil Rights movment, many people with these anti-tax, anti-minority, anti-urban leanings fell in with groups that ultimately became part of the militia movement. They don't recognize the Government, and that is their primary claim - but not far beneath the surface are much darker views.

This sentiment extends subtly much deeper into right wing politics than many people are willing to admit - for example where once conservative forces bullied Catholic Al Smith with all sorts of crazy allegations about Catholics, they now bully "Muslim" Barack Obama - where once they complained about Irish, Italian, and Jewish immigrants they now complain about Mexican, Honduran, and Chinese immigrants. There's far more to that, but for now, let's just focus on the issue at hand.

In 1983, one member of Posse Comitatus, Gordon Kahl, who had refused to pay taxes or show up for court or abide by his parole terms, was met in a small North Dakota town by two Federal Marshalls who came to arrest him for violating his parole (he had been jailed in the 1970s for tax evasion). Mr. Kahl and his son shot both law enforcement officers dead and fled to Arkansas. After they were found, Kahl killed another law enforcement officer - Lawrence County Sheriff Gene Matthews - and was killed in the ensuing shootout.

And that is the alternative situation that could have arisen at Cliven Bundy's ranch, only instead of one or two guys, it would have been hundreds.

The voicing of Cliven Bundy's racist beliefs shouldn't surprise you, because they are long-held beliefs that underpin the Militia and Sovereign Citizen movements.
I honestly cannot possibly fathom why anyone would write so much in response to this matter. People of Mr. C. Bundy's age endured decades of brainwashing at the hands of government and state media to think these exact things. It's extremely unfortunate but where's the surprise? You are however right in that they have moved from bullying one to another. This is a diversion, ignore the issue and create another. I'll be the first to say, "fuck his statements on slavery," but the ranchers still have an honest stance on this (land) issue despite some of them being stupid as mud.

(I had to delete some of your quote due to imposed length limits.)

[thesameguy]

People of Mr. C. Bundy's age endured decades of brainwashing at the hands of government and state media to think these exact things

What?

[LHutton]

What?
Put simply - government and state media were broadcasting these thoughts in the 1950s and probably didn't completely stop until long after MLK was dead.

[FaultyMario]

You are probably right about that. And the brainwashing too. It was all for the love of freedom, though.

[Taimar]

I honestly cannot possibly fathom why anyone would write so much in response to this matter.

It is my personal opinion that one of our biggest problems as a country is that we are gradually forgetting things about our past - like what it was like to live in a world without Social Security, for example - because they are a long time ago or difficult to contend with. A little actual history is rarely a bad thing.


People of Mr. C. Bundy's age endured decades of brainwashing at the hands of government and state media to think these exact things.

Your contention is that Government Propaganda turned Cliven Bundy into an anti-government anarchist?


Put simply - government and state media were broadcasting these thoughts in the 1950s and probably didn't completely stop until long after MLK was dead.

So somehow it is the Government's fault that this deeply anti-government guy who's considered himself a "sovereign citizen" for much of his life is a big fat Racist and hates the government?

What an absurd idea.

Cliven Bundy is 67. I have coworkers who are that age. He's younger than both of my parents. When he was young, he'd have listened to Led Zeppelin, not Glen Miller. He is not an nonagenarian product of some bygone era.

President Eisenhower sent in troops to protect the Little Rock Nine when Bundy was 10. Martin Luther King died when he was 21. Jimmy Carter was elected before he was 30. Decades of Brainwashing - :rolleyes:

Contrary to your statements, our Federal Government was not producing propaganda to turn people into anti-government Racists in the 1950s - racial attitudes, if anything, were softening in the wake of WW2 and the desegregation of the armed forces (Mr. Bundy was in daipers at the time). There was plenty of racial tension and plenty of lower level politicians who were happy to indulge in Racism - plenty of George Wallaces. But the Truman, Eisenhower, and Kennedy Administrations? Not so much. In fact, they were willing to go much further out on a limb for equality than FDR had.

[LHutton]

It is my personal opinion that one of our biggest problems as a country is that we are gradually forgetting things about our past - like what it was like to live in a world without Social Security, for example - because they are a long time ago or difficult to contend with. A little actual history is rarely a bad thing.



Your contention is that Government Propaganda turned Cliven Bundy into an anti-government anarchist?



So somehow it is the Government's fault that this deeply anti-government guy who's considered himself a "sovereign citizen" for much of his life is a big fat Racist and hates the government?

What an absurd idea.

Cliven Bundy is 67. I have coworkers who are that age. He's younger than both of my parents. When he was young, he'd have listened to Led Zeppelin, not Glen Miller. He is not an nonagenarian product of some bygone era.

President Eisenhower sent in troops to protect the Little Rock Nine when Bundy was 10. Martin Luther King died when he was 21. Jimmy Carter was elected before he was 30. Decades of Brainwashing - :rolleyes:

Contrary to your statements, our Federal Government was not producing propaganda to turn people into anti-government Racists in the 1950s - racial attitudes, if anything, were softening in the wake of WW2 and the desegregation of the armed forces (before Cliven Bundy was even born). There was plenty of racial tension and plenty of lower level politicians who were happy to indulge in Racism - plenty of George Wallaces. But the Truman, Eisenhower, and Kennedy Administrations? Not so much. In fact, they were willing to go much further out on a limb for equality than FDR had.
Clive Bundy is just a product of BS. MLK died when he was 21, okay, but true equal rights didn't manifest until after the 1980s (at the very least). Even today, coverage of the Trayvon Martin case wasn't entirely without racial bias. The guy is just old, not some extremely thoughtful racist in his own right.


You are probably right about that. And the brainwashing too. It was all for the love of freedom, though.
Which we know can mean anything, anyone wants it to.

[FaultyMario]

Your contention is that Government Propaganda turned Cliven Bundy into an anti-government anarchist?

Statements of that sort are all part of Z07's disingenuous new persona. I've repeatedly told him that I find his attitude grievous to the bonds we have built in our community.

I have fair amounts of sincere gratitude to your posts, Alex; They show Z07/LHutton to be, in no unclear terms, an internet troll.

[LHutton]

So what's your position? The state had it correct in 1950?

Is it just a coincidence that more old people are bigoted?

[Taimar]

So what's your position? The state had it correct in 1950?

Since you opened the door here, I'd like you to tell us exactly what you are referring to when you say that "the United States Government was brainwashing people into being racists in 1950."

Please demonstrate for the class.


Is it just a coincidence that more old people are bigoted?

Though there are many deeply bigoted young people out there, no, it's not. But that doesn't equate to it having something to do with government brainwashing.

[MR2 Fan]

So wait...the government was brainwashing people to be anti-government?

I mean, I know it exists today in the Tea Party and other right-wingers...supposedly trying to rally against the government by joining it, but I don't think people were being brainwashed to do that back in 50's.

[LHutton]

Since you opened the door here, I'd like you to tell us exactly what you are referring to when you say that "the United States Government was brainwashing people into being racists in 1950."

Please demonstrate for the class.



Though there are many deeply bigoted young people out there, no, it's not. But that doesn't equate to it having something to do with government brainwashing.
Well you can take that position, it is your right, but I believe, and in fact know that both the federal government and Her Majesty's Government were racist and homophobic douche snakes in the mid-20th century. Now, in the case of Clive Bundy, they wish to blame him for believing their crap. And there is some blame there but it multiplies and reflects back to its true owner.

[Taimar]

Well you can take that position, it is your right, but I believe, and in fact know that both the federal government and Her Majesty's Government were racist and homophobic douche snakes in the mid-20th century. Now, in the case of Clive Bundy, they wish to blame him for believing their crap. And there is some blame there but it multiplies and reflects back to its true owner.

Again, do you have any specifics at all here? None?

Your stipulation is therefore as follows: "Government Brainwashing - no citation -> Then something unknown happens -> Government is responsible for Cliven Bundy being a racist" - is that what you're going with?

[LHutton]

So wait...the government was brainwashing people to be anti-government?

I mean, I know it exists today in the Tea Party and other right-wingers...supposedly trying to rally against the government by joining it, but I don't think people were being brainwashed to do that back in 50's.
What is anti-government now wasn't always anti-government. The government is a chameleon.

People are always being brainwashed. If they weren't, the military would have no new recruits.

[LHutton]

Again, do you have any specifics at all here? None?

Your stipulation is therefore as follows: "Government Brainwashing - no citation -> Then something unknown happens -> Government is responsible for Cliven Bundy being a racist" - is that what you're going with?
To even ask for a citation is to ignore history on scale comparable to holocaust denial.

I mean really, what was MLK so hot under the collar about even???:lol:

http://samples.essaypedia.com/papers/racism-in-the-1950s-23218.html


The 1950s: these years represent the height of black segregation in the United States of America. It signifies a time when black and white Americans were detached from one another. These years symbolize a moment when interactions among the races appeared morally corrupt. Also, America desperately tries to suppress these years behind the pages of its embarrassing history. How could these incidents happen? Why did they happen? Should America blame those who were too ignorant to overcome their differences for this oppression? Or are the citizens', too blind to see raw aggression and hatred blurred their sights of morality, to blame? As a society who has overcome the dreaded days of hate, avoidance of pinning certain groups as the problem of this hidden mess in our history is essential. America suffered separation due to hate, ignorance, and the lack of confrontation. This decade in American history must always burn in the back of every American's mind. Unified America must acknowledge the faults of a country and a government so such unfortunate moments may never occur again. Unification and acknowledgment of a whole society prevent a separation from ever repeating itself.

[Taimar]

What is anti-government now wasn't always anti-government. The government is a chameleon.

I gotta admit, this is a real trip down the rabbit hole. Your explanation is essentially "all things are possible at any time for any reason I give."

Again, if you're going to make a claim of something verifiable, then make it. But if you have nothing other than vague, unfocused anger at authority, that's not really claim of anything.


People are always being brainwashed. If they weren't, the military would have no new recruits.

Not a single member of the military I have ever met was "brainwashed" into serving. They had their reasons for serving and they were their own.

When I was 18-21, roughly the age of most military recruits, I'd have never given a second thought to serving. Not only did I not want to, the Military wouldn't have wanted me even if I had. But part of me regrets that I'll never get to fly an E-3 Sentry, as odd as that sounds.

[LHutton]

Well you've ignored everything I've posted, so I guess the conversation ends here. I'm surprised you can't see that his opinions are too complicated for him to have formed them on his own.

Why wouldn't the military have wanted you anyway?

[Fiat500]

Her Majesty's

a pretty nice girl
But she doesn't have a lot to say

...

You should come back when you're sober.

You could also not come back, that would be pretty okay too.

[thesameguy]

Well you can take that position, it is your right, but I believe, and in fact know that both the federal government and Her Majesty's Government were racist and homophobic douche snakes in the mid-20th century. Now, in the case of Clive Bundy, they wish to blame him for believing their crap. And there is some blame there but it multiplies and reflects back to its true owner.

Dude was three in the "mid 20th century." His formative years were the 60s, amidst clear government rejection of racism and clear support of racial equality. Sure, maybe his parents were "government brainwashed bigots" (if such a thing actually exists), but if you suggest he is because they were and that is understandable, then what you're also saying is that everyone can be excused for acting like an asshat because at some point in the past some family member was exposed to ideas that are now unacceptable but were passed down anyway.

Taimar hit the nail on the head on the last page - Bundy is a stereotypical neo militia type who is fully indoctrinated into an entire manifesto of bullshit punctuated with racism with self-sovereignity. Neither his age nor his geographical history has anything to do with anything. This guy has bought into a whole set of ideals that have been fringey for somewhere between 50 and 250 years and totally symptomatic of someone a drumstick short of a meal deal.

[LHutton]

a pretty nice girl
But she doesn't have a lot to say
Just the way I like 'em.

Now leaving until sober.

[Taimar]

To even ask for a citation is to ignore history on scale comparable to holocaust denial.

Really?

:smh:




I mean really, what was MLK so hot under the collar about even???:lol:

The 1950s: these years represent the height of black segregation in the United States of America. It signifies a time when black and white Americans were detached from one another. These years symbolize a moment when interactions among the races appeared morally corrupt. Also, America desperately tries to suppress these years behind the pages of its embarrassing history. How could these incidents happen? Why did they happen? Should America blame those who were too ignorant to overcome their differences for this oppression? Or are the citizens', too blind to see raw aggression and hatred blurred their sights of morality, to blame? As a society who has overcome the dreaded days of hate, avoidance of pinning certain groups as the problem of this hidden mess in our history is essential. America suffered separation due to hate, ignorance, and the lack of confrontation. This decade in American history must always burn in the back of every American's mind. Unified America must acknowledge the faults of a country and a government so such unfortunate moments may never occur again. Unification and acknowledgment of a whole society prevent a separation from ever repeating itself.

Essaypedia? Who wrote this? Where does it come from? Again, it has no specifics. It's also terrible writing, so I wouldn't use that if you ever want to make a presentation on this.

But if you would like to talk about the 1950's and segregated America, I'm happy to talk about it - but only when we're dealing with actual knowable things.

For one thing - segregation was not the policy of the Federal Government in the 1950s. The only formally segregated part of the Federal Government was the Armed Services - which President Truman ordered desegregated in 1948. That doesn't mean, however, that all was rosy in the Federal Government and that people of color were somehow on equal footing. They weren't. People of color still had a very hard time advancing even in civil service jobs back then. But that doesn't equate to the government putting out propaganda encouraging racism.

The most obvious example of tacit racism in the activities of the Federal Government during this time comes not from any media office but from the Home Owner's Loan Corporation - a federal program developed to encourage home ownership and stimulate building during the depression which carried over into the suburban 1940s and 1950s. Prior to HOLC, many communities in northern urban centers were heavily integrated. These communities had little choice - with little housing stock built since the 1920s and many old buildings from the 19th century being the only housing options in dense urban areas like New York and Chicago, race was less of a factor in where people chose to live (it was still a factor, but not as much as it became). HOLC is the originator of redlining, and the actions of the individuals administering the loans and programs at HOLC often led to the ghettoization of minority communities, who's remaining integration was destroyed by urban renewal in the 1950s and 1960s, largely at the behest of White-owned business interests. The ghettos that this created are, in some ways, still with us now.

HOLC had little to do with rural areas, which were heavily segregated at that time.

Institutional Racism on a state level was rampant in the South and to a lesser extent the midwest and Western States. In the 1920s, and this might surprise some people, the KKK's largest stronghold was Indiana. But at that time Indiana was changing due to the great migration, and by the 1930s the KKK's power there had waned considerably. In 1949, Indiana began doing away with segregation by passing new laws to overturn old statutes - many of which dated to the 19th century. By 1956, Indiana was no longer a formally segregated state. Federal intervention was not required - no riots, no fire hoses, no troops. Does that mean that everything was perfect and there was no racial tension? No. But it isn't exactly the "zenith of segregation" either.

And all this still doesn't equate to the government somehow brainwashing people into being racists.

[FaultyMario]

Holocaust denial and Taimar, yes that could be the title of this summer's blockbuster. It clearly sounds like an "epic adventure" that'll "blow your mind away". I knew it from the moment I saw it. I guess the only thing missing in regards to who proposed it is, "from his generation's finest actor".

Z07 is a complete waste of time.

[Random]

Holocaust denial and Taimar

I lol'd.

[Rob]

Z07 is a complete waste of time.

Ain't that the truth.

[LHutton]

Without being funny, Taimar's post seems to have acknowledged institutional racism in the 1950s, which was precisely my point all along. Even after completely open racism died, subtle racism persisted for some time, as demonstrated by the Los Angeles riots. I don't think I'm saying anything hysterical here, it's just inconvenient that I'm demonstrating Bundy to be a product of his accuser's past works.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_segregation_in_the_United_States


De jure segregation, sanctioned or enforced by force of law, was stopped in the United States by federal enforcement of a series of Supreme Court decisions after Brown v. Board of Education in 1954. Its elimination lasted through much of the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, while civil rights demonstrations resulted in public opinion turning against enforced segregation. De facto segregation — segregation "in fact", without sanction of law — persists in varying degrees to the present day. The contemporary racial segregation seen in the United States in residential neighborhoods has been shaped by public policies, mortgage discrimination, and redlining, among other factors.

[FaultyMario]

I know. Everything you've said has been completely spot on. It's just that good argumentation has difficulties dealing with my hypocrisy.

or your Dissociative Identity Disorder, I forget which.

[LHutton]

I'm sorry if you disagree but society didn't really start to get on top of racism and the KKK until around the time of Ghostbusters.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fe93CLbHjxQ

[Rob]

I love how a dishonest twit from Yorkshire is lecturing Americans on the US Civil Rights Movement.

[LHutton]

I love how a dishonest twit from Yorkshire is lecturing Americans on the US Civil Rights Movement.
Yorkshire is a net exporter of manufactured goods. How about London?

[Rob]

No, see, I said "US Civil Rights Movement", not "London".

You imagined that entry to the topic, as per fucking usual.

Seriously dude, just leave. Pretty much everyone has remembered that you are a fucking idiot, so just call it quits.

[Jason]

This thread never fails at piquing my interest.

[TheBenior]

Right before he died in 2011, my 85 year old grandfather, referring to my black now-fiancee, told me, "If you marry that girl, tell her I said welcome to the family."

But unlike Mr Bundy, he was old enough to fight in WW2, so maybe he was brainwashed by some government propaganda:

http://www.historygallery.com/worldwar2/UnitedWeWinMED.JPG

[LHutton]

No, see, I said "US Civil Rights Movement", not "London".

You imagined that entry to the topic, as per fucking usual.
Why use 'Yorkshire' in a derogatory manner then? But I agree, it was a change of subject. Almost like changing a discussion about ranchers' rights into a discussion about the bigotry of an old guy and then denying the effects of institutional racism in the early post-war era.

Anyway, since the conversation has lost civility, I'll leave it there. It's really quite sad that we can't have a conversation without 'dishonest twit' coming into it.

This just in - inappropriate comments don't always mean you're a racist:

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/cnn-talks-to-black-bundy-bodyguard-who-would-still-take-a-bullet-for-him/


Cliven Bundy still has some support, even after his comments about slavery, and CNN spoke to an African-American man acting as a bodyguard for Bundy and plans to do so even after the comments went public. Army vet Jason Bullock told CNN based on all the time he’s spent with Bundy he can’t believe the man is a racist.

Bullock said he was “not at all” offended by Bundy’s comments, “wondering” whether black people would be better off as actual slaves as opposed to slaves of the federal government. Bullock explained, “Mr. Bundy is not a racist. Ever since I’ve been here, he’s treated me with nothing but hospitality. He’s pretty much treating me just like his own family.”

He said he would even “take a bullet for that man if need be,” saying he still believes in the cause Bundy is fighting for and still has a “really good feel about him.”

[neanderthal]

Breaking News/ this just in.

One persons opinion does not an issue change. Cliven Bundy is a racist fuckwit, no matter what this Jason Bullock person says.

[Mr Wonder]

No, you don't understand. It's okay. He can't be racist, he has a black friend!


If I call — if I say 'negro' or 'black boy' or 'slave,' I'm — If those people cannot take those kind of words and not be offensive, then Martin Luther King hasn't got his job done yet. They should be able to — I should be able to say those things and they shouldn't offend anybody.
You see if MLK hadn't quit, and had finished what he started, everyone would see that Bundy isn't a hypocritical, racist shitheel.

:rolleyes:

[Jason]

Right before he died in 2011, my 85 year old grandfather, referring to my black now-fiancee, told me, "If you marry that girl, tell her I said welcome to the family."

But unlike Mr Bundy, he was old enough to fight in WW2, so maybe he was brainwashed by some government propaganda:

http://www.historygallery.com/worldwar2/UnitedWeWinMED.JPG


That's fantastic, Ross. :up:

[LHutton]

No, you don't understand. It's okay. He can't be racist, he has a black friend!


You see if MLK hadn't quit, and had finished what he started, everyone would see that Bundy isn't a hypocritical, racist shitheel.

:rolleyes:
There may come a day when equality is so absolutely entrenched that all those words return to mere adjectives and nouns, but everyday some dumbass mentions them, it delays that day.

He's honestly not clever enough to be your stereotypical old white racist, who'll string together a bunch of facts about crime stats and social sciences studies into IQ to try and portray an unfact. I've dealt with many of them. They all lost and I was banned from many a website for confusing them.

Bundy should concentrate on Ranch issues and ignore racial issues.

[Freude am Fahren]

Actually, he should shut-up and pay his fees or GTFO.

[LHutton]

http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/16579391-imminent-domain-dispute-judges-ruling-puts-kibosh-on-keystone-xl-pipeline


After a recent State Department report declared the completion of the Keystone XL pipeline would not significantly increase climate change, which buoyed Republican supporters, a Nebraska judge has thrown out the original law that allowed the project to be approved.

http://blog.nrcprograms.org/treaty-series-keystone-xl-pipeline/


TransCanada fails to see that safety and economic gain is not the point – the point is harm to the environment and to tribes as sovereign nations. - See more at: http://blog.nrcprograms.org/treaty-series-keystone-xl-pipeline/#sthash.dDdk5XP5.dpuf

[speedpimp]

I heard the audio of Bundy's comments yesterday. In one of the clips you could hear a motorcycle accelerate away very fast. Someone commented that the sound of the motorcycle represented every one who was supporting Bundy getting the fuck out of Dodge as soon as they heard these comments. The whole thing sounds like an Andy Kauffman comedy bit.

[Freude am Fahren]

Also, I didn't realize he owned the Clippers. Er, wait... Different old white guy racist?

[KillerB]

Just dropping in to say - staying out of these discussions is what keeps me off blood pressure medication despite being 15 lbs overweight and eating way too much salt.

Sit down, chill out, and have a beer with each other, I say. Except for LHutton, I'm pretty sure he's a cunt.

[LHutton]

Sit down, chill out, and have a beer with each other, I say. Except for LHutton, I'm pretty sure he's a cunt.
:lol:

It's only the internet, it isn't real. Do you get wound up playing GTAV or BF4?

All I'm saying is that the guy may be suffering from a bad case of Amanda Knox syndrome, e.g. when someone looks so guilty that you begin to realise that even the most guilty person in the world would do a better job of looking innocent, and then you slowly begin to question whether it's just how they naturally look.

Racism isn't about what you say, it's about the intent behind it. Bundy is a total fucking imbecile for mentioning those words, anyone remotely skilled in PR would avoid them like the plague, even if they were racist. The fact that he has a black friend who's known him for longer than the 15 seconds it took him to verbally castrate himself and holds him in high regard, perhaps says more about his true character. But JFC the guy needs to shut up and his friend could do with giving him some PR lessons, even if it's just a list of words to never use in any sentence ever.

[FaultyMario]

Rando, can you please add an "Ignore LHutton" button to the forum's dash? Alternatively, You could just do what Nigel and Ed did on the other boards and just turn his switch off?

[LHutton]

Rando, can you please add an "Ignore LHutton" button to the forum's dash? Alternatively, You could just do what Nigel and Ed did on the other boards and just turn his switch off?
How very tolerant and progressive.

I'm letting this go for at least a week. The response is honestly bewildering.

[Rikadyn]

http://fc07.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2014/115/1/b/psycho_hicks_by_rednblacksalamander-d7fymid.jpg

[FaultyMario]

How very tolerant and progressive.

I mean, It's only the internet, innit?

I mean you said it yourself, didn't you?. Was that after you said you were going to leave this discussion? or was it after you said you were going to let the Clive Bundy discussion die down? 'Cause I get confused by all the false starts. You know, sometimes it gets really annoying because I can't remember if you said you were too smart for these threads or if you just implied to it by doing a copypasta of some irrelevant snippet out of some discredited user-edited web repository? I'm still wondering if it was on this board or over at Nigel's -where, may i remind you, you threatened his kids- or maybe it was at the Refuge where I seem to recall NoQuarter killing you dead mere posts after one of your attempts at 'undercover' posting.

You see, you are right about tolerance, It's taken quite a bit of time to have these multiple claims about your idiocy.
And you are right about progress, too. Your defence of racism, homophobia, xenophobia, violence and plain old nuttiness is growing, progressively.


I'm letting this go for at least a week.

Oh, thanks mang! So kind of you... I hope you stand by your word this time, It's gonna make things a lot more pleasant without you around here.

[Rob]

Why use 'Yorkshire' in a derogatory manner then?

Geographical manner actually. Pointing out that you weren't exactly local to the issues you were lecturing on.

But by all means invent even more context where it doesn't exist.

[21Kid]

Rep. Grimm charged with tax fraud; says he won't quit (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/04/28/michael-grimm-indicted-congress/8386217/)

NEW YORK — A 20-count indictment unsealed Monday charged Rep. Michael Grimm, R-N.Y.,with an alleged tax evasion scheme involving the concealment of more than $1 million in receipts from his New York restaurant where he employed an undisclosed number of undocumented immigrants.

[FaultyMario]

"We have people on television and talk radio scaring the hell out of people," Gadson said.

The bishop grew up in the South and recalls segregated bathrooms and drinking fountains. He moved to L.A. 50 years ago and knew immediately that it was a better place. But even now, he said, he sees white people eye him suspiciously depending on the time and place.

"A whole lot of it has changed, but a whole lot of it went underground, and when Obama became president it all came back out," said Ron Simmons, a church elder. "They couldn't help themselves."


http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-lopez-tolliver-20140430,0,2778875.column

[21Kid]

Good thing racism doesn't exist any more. Why do we still bother even talking about it? :?

[thesameguy]

Historical interest?

[LHutton]

I'm still wondering if it was on this board or over at Nigel's -where, may i remind you, you threatened his kids- or maybe it was at the Refuge where I seem to recall NoQuarter killing you dead mere posts after one of your attempts at 'undercover' posting.

And you are right about progress, too. Your defence of racism, homophobia, xenophobia, violence and plain old nuttiness is growing, progressively.

All of that is completely incorrect. I don't wish to defend any of those things and I denounce them completely just in case there's doubt. I just think it's important to distinguish between a stupid old man who watches too much Faux and genuine racists out to defame, disadvantage or hurt ethnic minorities. Equally, there are plenty of racists out there who spew political correctness but the underlying intent is there, notable by their choice of topics.

How many elderly people have you heard say something inappropriate that would be seen in a bad way if it was on TV? I have an Indian brother-in-law and both my parents and grandparents welcomed him into the family. That's pretty much the ultimate test to detect a true racist and I'm happy to say they passed with flying colours. Would I let my parents or grandparents talk about social equality issues on TV? No way. The chances of saying something inappropriate or something that would be taken inappropriately is too great. Here's an example:


I love how a dishonest twit from Yorkshire is lecturing Americans on the US Civil Rights Movement.
Now this may not have been intended to insult people from Yorkshire but if you add a location or a nationality to an insult it most often is perceived that way. As a parallel I'm offering Jeremy Clarkson's 'Scottish Twit' comment in relation to Gordon Brown.

As another example - Rob on religion to Billi:


...it's about him spreading a disease that humanity needn't put up with
Not likely to be taken too well if said on live TV either, at worst, in the UK, it could even lead to his arrest for inciting religious hatred, if he was a public figure.

[LHutton]

On a lighter note:

http://news.yahoo.com/mitch-hedburg-donut-receipt-140844507.html

http://l.yimg.com/os/publish-images/news/2014-05-01/e70818b0-d13b-11e3-bf79-257bc66577f7_donut-receipt-footer.jpg


"I don’t need a receipt for a doughnut. I’ll just give you the money, you give me the doughnut. End of transaction. We don’t need to bring ink and paper into this.”

[Rob]

All of that is completely incorrect.

No, all of that actually happened and even if you weren't previously known as Z07, you'd be at least reasonably aware of the history he (you) has shitting up this community.

I've asked you plenty of times to inform everyone of your previous username(s) in an attempt to offer you a chance to disprove my accusation of who you are, and all you've done is change the subject, resulting in more people coming to the conclusion that you are Z07.

Just fuck off, you miserable lying sack of shit.

[FaultyMario]

I hadn't paid attention to Z07's latest comments, I then saw you quote them and went and read them, and while at first I felt insulted, I then remembered who their author was.

So yeah, that was .017 seconds of rage. Foregone.
I have zero expectancy of the idiot's willingness to state his previous handles.

[Crazed_Insanity]

Yeah, LHutton, why do you just fess up? Explain who you are. Produce a birth certificate. Prove you are worthy of Rob's approval! Cause if you don't, I'm sure Rob can ask Random nicely to ban you! You don't want that to happen, right? So just do the right thing. If you want to stick around here, you better not mess with Rob! :hard:

Anyway, regarding Sterling, it's really stupid. Not trying to defend the guy or anything, he is probably most likely a racist. He has had history of questionable behavior just that we never had solid proof... until now. Still, I just find it appalling that it's okay for people to act like the NSA to rat people out and then try to crucify a guy who was making some sort of emotional ramblings intended only for private consumption.

However, as Chris Rock said, I paraphrase, rich people cannot say shit about poor people... only poor people can say shit about rich people. If you want to be able to say politically incorrect shit, you better NOT be the one that has lot of shit. Just as it's okay for black people can use the N word, but of course not okay for non-black people!

So, people try to maximize the pain on Sterling by banning him and forcing him to sell his team... But I'm sure the fine is like pocket change to a billionaire. Plus, the dude likes a half black half mexican chick, so is he really a 'racist'? Was he really fooled by her Italian sounding name?

Anyway, to me, it's more scary to have a super politically correct person who deep down inside is a racist. Sterling is probably just some sort of old fool. I don't know him, I could be wrong of course. Maybe he is pure evil and deserves to be hanged and his money be redistributed to all of us... Whatever.

Personally, I find this movement of say the wrong thing and you'll be lynched by the media/public kinda scary.

[FaultyMario]

:sigh:

[Rob]

When somebody who proudly confesses to beating a toddler defends a dishonest moron (who makes threats towards children) from me, I don't really feel challenged or put out.

[Crazed_Insanity]

Again, in case you can't read, let me put it more clearly.

I do discipline my daughter when she is out of line, but I don't beat up my own kid.

Further, I did not defend that old fool. I only brought up the other side of the story which not long ago people were making a huge fuss about... which was NSA snooping on private information. I can totally understand if Sterling were such a dumbass and made his statement publically. Then I can totally understand the public's reaction. However, given that the private comment was purposely leaked. Now she'll probably end up on talk shows and land book deals or perhaps even movie deals out of that... I was just wondering didn't we think NSA was bad for doing that? Something is not right with this picture. This is not a simple if she's right than he's wrong or if he's right then she's wrong. I just think they're both wrong for doing what they did. I'm not as black and white as you often are.

Lastly, LHutton, you have 3 days to comply to Rob's demand and produce a birth certificate. Prove that you are really born at Hawaii! Or else get the fuck outta here! You're obviously not welcomed here because Rob said so! Yeah...

Oh, and try not to sigh too much Mario! Have a nice weekend guys! :D

[Rob]

I was referring to you defending Z07, dickhead.

Although it is interesting how thoroughly delusional you are with how you're attempting to make out that I'm the only person who doesn't like Z07.

Nigel and Russ spoke to his old ISP and had his access to the old place blocked. He's never met anyone in the community and nobody seems to want to meet him. So yeah, sure, it's literally just me that thinks he's a dildo.

[LHutton]

Just fuck off, you miserable lying sack of shit.
I don't think I like your tone.

- Luke

[Rob]

Your point?

[LHutton]

Certainly looks that way.

[Rikadyn]

outside of the world of ad hominem attacks:

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/05/02/nyc-cyclist-arrested-for-using-cellphone-to-film-cop-told-iphones-are-being-used-as-guns/


“I was told by another officer while in the car that recording a police officer was illegal because people are using iPhones as guns and shooting cops through the camera lens…I told him that I have the right to be recording a cop and he said that there were incidents, specifically in uptown Manhattan where a kid shot a cop with his iPhone. Straight face. Very serious.”

[LHutton]

There was recently a woman arrested for DUI after cops crashed into the side of her at a crossroads. She wasn't DUI but the link has now been disregarded to the back pages of Poodle/Google. She suffered spinal injuries.

[overpowered]

GOP candidate was once a female impersonator (http://www.journalnow.com/news/local/gop-candidate-was-once-a-female-impersonator/article_a1029862-5a82-5752-90e4-eac7155bce1e.html)

[overpowered]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bm0NEuyIQAEJVqG.png:large

[21Kid]

Nigel lives in Spain?

[LHutton]

According to the Vatican:
http://www.nonformality.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/europe-according-to-vatican.jpg

[FaultyMario]

Nigel lives in Spain?

It is, coincidentally, the friendliest place in the world for manly manlove.

[George]

*checks airline schedule*

[LHutton]

Putin may have been right about the fascists. Some evidence of executions.

Not safe for work (or humanity in general)

http://ersieesist.livejournal.com/813.html
http://frallik.livejournal.com/781599.html

The jokes about the incident afterwards were arguably worse.

[Rikadyn]

http://libcom.org/news/statement-odessa-tragedy-autonomous-workers-union-06052014

[LHutton]

http://libcom.org/news/statement-odessa-tragedy-autonomous-workers-union-06052014


At this moment is still unclear which factor contributed the most to the fire, which burned some and suffocated others to death.
Sorry to say this, but absolute rubbish. The comments on social media alone give a better indication of what happened and the intent of maidan and the right-sector. It's extremely clear which party contributed to the fire and which party couldn't wait less than a year for elections.

New government now planning to use artillery on its citizens.

http://www.voicesevas.ru/news/yugo-vostok/vozle-krasnoarmeiska-sobrana-moschnaja-u.html

[overpowered]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbuDPO2LSX4

[TheBenior]

All that pure libertarianism needs to work is:

-Consumers to make themselves knowledgeable of everything that businesses do and every corner that is cut
-Government that only enforces property rights
-Government that is incorruptible and cannot be bribed to pass laws favoring certain entities
-The threat of later litigation being enough to avoid environmental degradation that will harm many
-Private charities to serve the poor on a level at least close to what government does, which has never been done before
-People to adequately save for retirement on their own and not get conned by plans with high fees
-and a bunch of other shit that also isn't going to happen.

[LHutton]

I didn't think pure libertarianism even had government, not a publicly funded one anyway. Usually libertarians start talking about private policing and I laugh.

[thesameguy]

Libertarianism is a pretty diverse group of beliefs (with some core ideals), and its definition varies widely depending on where and when you ask - ie it's not the same in America as in the UK, and it's not the same in 2014 as it was in 1814.

[21Kid]

It's funny how they say that with all of the main infrastructure now in place. If that type of government would have existed before the 20s we'd have no multi-state highway system, space program and subsequently satellites, no internet, no SSI, etc... There's so much stuff that wouldn't exist if that government was in control, it's laughable. It would basically be like the wild west.

[FaultyMario]

The $urreal itself is a mock banknote – Brazil's currency is the real – emblazoned with the face of Spanish surrealist artist Salvador Dalí. O Globo, Rio's biggest-selling daily newspaper, joked that the city needed its own currency, and some media-savvy Cariocas decided to create one, with Dalí's face on the front in place of the usual Brazilian national heroes. "We can't just act like typical Brazilians and agree something is wrong, make a joke, then swallow it," TV editor Andrea Cals told the Bloomberg news agency. "We have to stop this, because it's getting serious. It's no joke when I'm spending much more than I earn."

http://www.theguardian.com/world/shortcuts/2014/feb/02/rio-residents-fighting-inflation-fake-currency


:|

[thesameguy]

That's rough. I can't imagine being in a scenario where everything was thrown out of whack so suddenly.

[LHutton]

The fake currency will make the inflation even worse. Wonder how this fits in with Brazil's recent growth.

[Rob]

Satirical artworks depicting currency don't traditionally have any affect on inflation.

[LHutton]

Scan read. Sorry. The growth question may still be relevant though given the rapid inflation.

[LHutton]

http://5continentnews.wordpress.com/2014/05/10/ukraine-builds-dam-cutting-off-crimea-water-supply/


Recent satellite images show that Kiev is deliberately trying to cut off Crimea peninsula’s water supply by building a dam. In the meantime Russian scientists are trying to find ways to supply Crimea with fresh water.Experts from the Russian Ministry of Natural Resources are developing ways to supply fresh water to the Crimea from the Kuban River in the Krasnodar region to the North Crimean Canal which now receives limited water-flow, as Kiev tightens the lid on Simferopol.“As one of options of providing the peninsula with water, we are considering an option of drawing water supply from the Kuban River and channeling it through the Strait of Kerch to the end portion of North Crimean Canal,” director of the department of public policy and regulation in the field of water resources ministry of Russia Dmitry Kirillov told Ria Novosti.He added in order to do so the transfer an underground pipeline has to be built in three segments, with each stretching about 130 kilometers.

20 killed in Mariupol by new Ukrainian government.

http://www.channel4.com/news/ukraine-mariupol-20-dead-russia-putin-crimea-sevastopol

[LHutton]

Kiev shuts down polling station for referendum on independence. Coming soon to an EU near you.

http://news.yahoo.com/ukraine-guardsmen-open-fire-crowd-174522849.html


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4joK6D_-Wc