Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 reds8n wrote:
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/bundy-ranch-uncensored

I'm going to tell a little story that this made me think of. Rosa Parks. We all know her name, but we don't know the names of the 3 other people who did exactly what she upwards of a year before her in the same town of Montegomery Alabama. Why don't you know their names? Because one was a drunk (who probably refused because he was too intoxicated), the other a black panther, and the last an unwed teenage mother.

The lesson? The NAACP picked its battle. They waited until there was someone irrefutable to get behind and rose them up. Now we only know Rosa Park's name and often associate her solely with a long practice that had been regularly used to protest Jim Crow for over 30 years.

It was obvious from day 1 that Bundy was crazy. That pretty much everyone who showed up at the protest was some kind of crazy. But it didn't stop all kinds of people from jumping behind him, buying into the crazy without any thought, and now look what happened. This has been a problem that I find particularly damaging for Republicans and conservative minded voters in the US for awhile now. They don't look before they leap. They jump on the bandwagon with somebody* and end up with a whole wagon of crazy.

The Reid thing doesn't make any sense. That land is completely unrelated to the Bundy dispute and made up only because Reid is an evil Democrat. Bundy obviously doesn't understand the basic principles behind Federalism, and seemingly, doesn't even work as a rancher anymore. He just dresses up and fights pointless legal battles with the US government while nearly 1000 head of cattle go unmanaged for two decades and become a public health hazard. I get that people don't like the government and think it should be smaller, but rallying around this guy isn't really winning anyone over.

*Democratic and Librel minded voters have their own issues, not saying they're perfect

On side note is the fact that not far from Laughlin is a small ghosttown in Arizona called Oatman, where wild burros roam the street in fair sized herds.

My eyes read "wild burritoes," and I suddenly filled with childlike sense of wonder.

 Frazzled wrote:

On side note is the fact that not far from Laughlin is a small ghosttown in Arizona called Oatman, where wild burros roam the street in fair sized herds.

My eyes read "wild burritoes," and I suddenly filled with childlike sense of wonder.

They are easily lured by tasty salsas.

I have done my night photography around many wild creatures.

Wild burros are the only animals I have ran from.

 d-usa wrote:
I have done my night photography around many wild creatures.

Wild burros are the only animals I have ran from.

They can get pissy.

I could hear them walk pretty close, popped off a flash, and saw 30 eyeballs reflecting back at me about 15 feet away. Quick dash to the car and I was out. Territorial devils!

 Frazzled wrote:
Again the use of gunmen to settle a rental agreement, while the subject of men chopsaki classics, is not typically how you handle that in a civilized society.

Sure, except for the countless numbers of armed Sheriffs and their deputies who are enforcing civil eviction and foreclosure orders in every city in this country every day. I mean, don't you work in the banking industry? Surely you must know this. What's with the feigned ignorance?

 Frazzled wrote:
You deployed the state guard to protect rich people in Hollywood from their rightoues comeuppance DOWN WITH THE 1%!!! . You didn't start a war. Quit talking nonsense.

You need to actually read the words. They deployed US Marines and regular US army in addition to federalized National Guard.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Today I learned that there are herds of wild donkeys roaming some parts of the US.

The US Military can be deployed domestically legally.

For example; "Troops used under the order of the President of the United States pursuant to the Insurrection Act, as was the case during the 1992 Los Angeles Riots."

 d-usa wrote:
I could hear them walk pretty close, popped off a flash, and saw 30 eyeballs reflecting back at me about 15 feet away. Quick dash to the car and I was out. Territorial devils!

You're lucky you didn't get kicked in the head.

Relapse wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I could hear them walk pretty close, popped off a flash, and saw 30 eyeballs reflecting back at me about 15 feet away. Quick dash to the car and I was out. Territorial devils!

You're lucky you didn't get kicked in the head.

Like I said: only animals I have ever ran from

 d-usa wrote:
I could hear them walk pretty close, popped off a flash, and saw 30 eyeballs reflecting back at me about 15 feet away. Quick dash to the car and I was out. Territorial devils!

Hey when even sweet baby Jebus calls them an ass, that might say something...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Again the use of gunmen to settle a rental agreement, while the subject of men chopsaki classics, is not typically how you handle that in a civilized society.

Sure, except for the countless numbers of armed Sheriffs and their deputies who are enforcing civil eviction and foreclosure orders in every city in this country every day. I mean, don't you work in the banking industry? Surely you must know this. What's with the feigned ignorance?

Don't know where you live at, but around here they don't come in with machine guns, well unless Yankees are involved of course. Or Zombies.

 Frazzled wrote:
You deployed the state guard to protect rich people in Hollywood from their rightoues comeuppance DOWN WITH THE 1%!!! . You didn't start a war. Quit talking nonsense.

You need to actually read the words. They deployed US Marines and regular US army in addition to federalized National Guard.

Thats illegal, and no they didn't not outside of military installations.

y'know, Im taking a page from frazzled and going to act insane for a bit. Off to go blame the poor in my urban sociology for their own poverty

 Frazzled wrote:
The Harry Reid's son/China link is very interesting here actually.

That's actually been debunked on Bundy's case.

Outside of that... sure, it seems shady as all hell. But, that isn't what's going on here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:

Is there any news on the BLM and the Texas ranchers along the Red River? It would be interesting to see what is going on with that and what the local news says.

Yeah... it's going to court as those lands are actually owned.

I really don't understand BLM's justification for doing that though... does anyone have a good source?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:
An opinion page from the local paper:

http://mvprogress.com/2014/04/23/no-one-asked-me-but-april-23-2014/

The guy does have a point in that the federal government is selectivly picking which laws on the books to enforce.

That's always been the issue. It's the nature of the beast... the turnovers of the DoJ every 4/8 years.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
y'know, Im taking a page from frazzled and going to act insane for a bit. Off to go blame the poor in my urban sociology for their own poverty

If the homeless REALLY wanted to not be homeless anymore, why wouldn't they just have their limo drivers take them back to their summer homes?

No, I have to make it look like I mean it.

 daedalus wrote:

If the homeless REALLY wanted to not be homeless anymore, why wouldn't they just have their limo drivers take them back to their summer homes?

Well clearly the problem is that they all wear sneakers. With no bootstraps, they can't pull themselves up so they just have to go by some boots.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
y'know, Im taking a page from frazzled and going to act insane for a bit. Off to go blame the poor in my urban sociology for their own poverty

Wo wo wo Act???


Hey I'm the guy who, when the waiter at Alamo Drafthouse switched up the order and gave me Genghis Connie's milkshake and gave her my Jim Beam on the rocks tried to keep the shake. It was GOOD!

So, can someone tell me how this is different from Shay's Rebellion or the Whiskey Rebellion?

 Easy E wrote:
So, can someone tell me how this is different from Shay's Rebellion or the Whiskey Rebellion?

This incident is not that much like Shay's Rebellion. That was bigger and based heavily in horribly regulated currency environment of the Articles of Confederation (It was also directed against the Massachuetts government).

The Whiskey Rebellion is a little closer (does Bundy pay his income taxes?). It's most comparable to the utter idiocy. The Whiskey Rebllion was launched by a bunch of guys who basically argued they were not represented in Federal government, apparently ignoring that whole election thing that had just happened. So they said they didn't have to pay any taxes on whiskey (blame Alexander Hamilton, the man child of early America). Much like with Bundy, the government tries resolving the incident peacefully at first, but unlike with Bundy the rebels started getting really violent.

 Easy E wrote:
So, can someone tell me how this is different from Shay's Rebellion or the Whiskey Rebellion?

Less whiskey. Duh!

Maybe we can call this the Hooved Hamburger Rebellion?

I like it. I shall eat barbeque in celebration.

 Frazzled wrote:
I like it. I shall eat barbeque in celebration.

You should barbaque some turtles

 LordofHats wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
I like it. I shall eat barbeque in celebration.

You should barbaque some turtles

Turtle stew is actually pretty tasty.

Think the mentallity of US Troops in '92 was Peace Time Army. I remember being DRF in the 82nd (combat BDE gone in six hours) and being on locked down for that stupidity in LA

Now you want to send a Combat harden unit into a protest area where they have weapons.no riots...no gun fire....so respond in kind with their weapons and combat troops so we can escalate it to a massacre on the protesters.....

Now the issue of the National Guard unit if activated for 29 days....30 days or more then its a Federal Activation Title 10. Choose carefully which unit you send in.

Remember the OWS thread where we discuss US Troops, COMBAT TROOPS shooting on Americans. Remember their Americans till a shot rings out then the individual is a threat and the protesters are the obstacle. Park Rangers are a liability in what now has become literally a combat operation till the threat is removed.

Then the new thread be bashing the US Military

Keep with BLM and Bundy peeps.

 reds8n wrote:
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/bundy-ranch-uncensored

"This morning, I said a prayer, and this is what I received. I heard a voice say, 'Sheriff Gillespie, your work is not done. Every sheriff across the United States, take the guns away from the United States bureaucrats.’” Lots of clapping for this.

What happened to that Most Holy of Sacred Texts, the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America? Is he really this dumb for real?

I'm afraid he only believes in rights for himself. No one else can have any

Frazzled wrote:You deployed the state guard to protect rich people in Hollywood from their rightoues comeuppance DOWN WITH THE 1%!!! . You didn't start a war. Quit talking nonsense.

Frazzled wrote:Thats illegal, and no they didn't not outside of military installations.

Holy gak, you are unbelievable. Facts? Hah, I just pretend they don't exist and reiterate my (wrong) opinion! At this point I realize you are either trolling, or just being immune to reality in this thread, and in either case not really worth further engaging, but I want to make sure I point out how poor your arguments are for everyone else that might be reading, your cheap brand of refusing to to listen and goalpost moving.

Example one:

1.) You state that you don't send gunmen to enforce civil rental agreements.
2.) I state that we send armed sheriffs and deputies to enforce evictions and foreclosures in every city in the country, every day.
3.) You state "not with machine guns". Goalposts moved! See, I can try and say, "well, I didn't see any machine guns on the BLM, either" but then you will just move it to something else while being wrong, wrong, wrong.

Example two:

1.) I say it's legal to deploy troops for insurrection
2.) You say it's illegal
3.) I point out not only is it legal, we did it in 1992 in los angeles, and give an example, and LordofHats reiterates this later
4.) You say well, it wasn't troops, it was just state national guard. Goalposts moved! And, also, wrong. I pointed out that they were federalized national guard (which are, by definition, not state troops), and US Army and US Marines besides.
5.) You say well., they only deployed them to military installations. Goalposts moved! And also, wrong. Again, I can show more links of how, indeed, Army and Marines were deployed, but I know exactly how you will respond. You'll say, well, most of them stayed in a staging area! And while that is true, many did not, and the point is then made that we did indeed deploy troops in 1992, and that it is lawful to do so, and that we probably will do so again - both Bush and Obama signed various legislation actually expanding the scope of how regular troops can be deployed.

That's the Frazzled experience in this thread. Make a point, be wrong, move the goalposts, be wrong, and then reiterate your original point. I won't even get into the debunked Harry Reid story, which 20 seconds of googling shows is not true.

Guns are there to protect you from your tyrannical government.
Government shouldn't be allowed any armed officials.

So why do you need the guns again, Bundy?

The Government is reluctant to deploy troops not because it's illegal* but because as Frazzled has aptly shown, Americans tend not to like the idea of US Troops marching into their community and pointing boom sticks (we only like doing that to other countries ).

*it totally is legal and the criteria is basically just the President thinks he should do it and Congress is willing to go along with it.

Now granted, in 1992 the heavy lifting was done by the National Guard, but the 2nd Brigade 7th ID and elements of 1st Marines were deployed to LA fully armed and able. The US Military has maintained contingency plans for domestic deployment for over a century Operation Garden Plot was the original plan devised following the 1967 Detroit Riots and was executed numerous times in the 60s and 70s. EDIT: The domestic deployment of troops following the 9/11 attacks, while so brief no one noticed, was called Noble Eagle, cause we come up with the most bad ass code names ('Murica).

While the US Military has never been mass deployed domestically since the Civil War, there is nothing in the law that says they can't be.