NAOS
Well-Known Member
^that'll get it back on track. Clever thoughts, brough.
150 Terrorists invade Oregon
- Thread starter The Thriller
- Start date
^that'll get it back on track. Clever thoughts, brough.
Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
Wow. You certainly delivered on your promise not to add a useful piece of information to this thread. You're a man of your word. Well done!
Totes.
Edit; Read - I'm actually interested, but your vague references are turning me off.
Red
Well-Known Member
On the subject of the founding fathers and dealing with "rebellions", here is Tom Jefferson's point of view:
https://www.earlyamerica.com/early-america-review/volume-1/jefferson-letter-madison/
Shays’ Rebellion — a sometimes-violent uprising of farmers angry over conditions in Massachusetts in 1786 — prompted Thomas Jefferson to express the view that “a little rebellion now and then is a good thing” for America. Unlike other leaders of The Republic, Jefferson felt that the people had a right to express their grievances against the government, even if those grievances might take the form of violent action.
"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."
Not coming down on the side of the occupiers here. Just wanted to point out that while George Washington may have been fine with crushing rebellions, Jefferson was not.....
https://www.earlyamerica.com/early-america-review/volume-1/jefferson-letter-madison/
Shays’ Rebellion — a sometimes-violent uprising of farmers angry over conditions in Massachusetts in 1786 — prompted Thomas Jefferson to express the view that “a little rebellion now and then is a good thing” for America. Unlike other leaders of The Republic, Jefferson felt that the people had a right to express their grievances against the government, even if those grievances might take the form of violent action.
"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."
Not coming down on the side of the occupiers here. Just wanted to point out that while George Washington may have been fine with crushing rebellions, Jefferson was not.....
uhhhhmmmmm. . . . lessee. . . .
something material to the willingness of self-styled "Patriots" to contest a power claimed by the Federal government that, they feel needs to be understood. . . ?????
Fed agency over-reach is getting a little notice in Congress nowadays, and the need for oversight and review of the regulations issued by the agencies which have their own "Courts" for processing disputes, with administrative judges on salary with the agency? Why could "we" expect people to just forget things like the right to a trial by jury composed of your "peers", meaning private people like you and me.
There's something about the information you provided earlier. I have a friend who is a Sheriff, who goes out to investigate killed cows and other animals, to write reports and such, look for evidence.
I'm gonna hafta ask him if he thinks those game carcasses would really have burned so completely nobody could determine the cause of death. I'm sorta thinking it's not that hard for a govt. prosecutor to get "witnesses" to testify in exchange for, say, an early parole or a dropped charge on something.
Was it one of those administrative judges who tried this case?
I don't think it's really that iffy. Jefferson made it pretty definite. Doesn't matter what or who or when or why, if people are so upset with the govt. it's better to let them get it out in the air. Works if it's blacks in LA offended by police misconduct, or ranchers who are being driven outta business by Fed harassment over old customary ways some scholarly deskflyer thinks needs to be changed by levying fines twice the value of the ranch.
If people can get their issues out and noticed, life can still be tolerable in the USA.
Not to say that it's just ignored. It needs official attention, and not just a jackbooted gang of "law enforcement" struttin' their stuff, Shock and AWe style. I'm glad the officials up in Burns are doing some talkin', playing it with a cool hand. Wish the media reporters could do as much.
Red
Well-Known Member
The American Revolution was prefaced by what would certainly go down as terrorist acts. Here, in Rhode Island, the Gaspee Affair of 1772 can be seen as an act of terrorism against people loyal to the King. But the British government could not charge or try any of the "terrorists" involved. The Gaspee incident can be seen as the opening shots of our own Revolution. But it could only be seen as breaking the law as far as the British throne was concerned. Dressing up as Native Americans, shooting a British customs officer, and burning his ship to the water line, was an incident that absolutely stunned and angered the Crown. And since there were abundant loyalists among the colonists in every colony, it can be seen as an act of terrorism....
https://www.ushistory.org/declaration/related/gaspee.htm
https://www.ushistory.org/declaration/related/gaspee.htm
Jefferson was pretty blunt with it but for me it is iffy. I am not against getting your "issues out and noticed". Actually I am very much for it.
That does not mean that I have to agree with everyone. This exact case is proof of that. I am all for the protests. I think there are some legit issues. The feds own most of OR, UT, ID, NV and large portions of AZ, CO, CA, WY, ND, SD and MT Some legit grievances imo. But the taking of this center was idiotic. Terrible way to build your base and rally support. They ruined a lot of the momentum they were building IMO.
Here's another. Before the BLM movement there were tons of protests, marches, sit ins, boycotts, speeches, rallies...right on! Absolutely! Yes! But then you had a hard element that started to twist it and rioting started. I was against that.
Just because I don't automatically support violence doesn't mean I don't acknowledge the cause or that wrongs may have happened.
When groups embrace violence, especially early on in their cause, they turn people away and marginalize themselves.
Minimum Sentencing?
According to the protesters, it's the application of a harsh sentencing rule.
This oughtta get Fish up there to help protest, anybody who dislikes mandatory sentencing for relatively minor crimes. . . . This is a huge issue with a lot of people who have been abused by administrative agency kangaroo courts.
Who's prosecuting this case?
According to the protesters, it's the application of a harsh sentencing rule.
This oughtta get Fish up there to help protest, anybody who dislikes mandatory sentencing for relatively minor crimes. . . . This is a huge issue with a lot of people who have been abused by administrative agency kangaroo courts.
Who's prosecuting this case?
But NOTHING ABOUT THIS SITUATION is federal overreach. NOTHING.
On the surface you have
1. Two guys going to continue a prison sentence that they should have went through before, but didn't. They said they'd do one thing, got BLM approval, and then did something else and tried to say it was preapproved.
2. A bunch of other guys(who have been told to go home by the first two) occupying a government building with what boils down to "We want to own this land. Not the government". On the surface that might seem acceptable to those skewed into the "OMG, GUB'MENT TAKIN MAI STUFF!" mindset, but once they start putting up fences, no trespassing signs... charging other ranchers for grazing rights on those lands.. it becomes very quickly easy to see they're in it not for justice, not for each other, not to fight government overreach and tyranny, but because they're greedy bitches out only for themselves. Not even each other, just themselves.
Still, you're a cool-headed thinking guy.
Sometimes people just get pissed.
You gonna tell your wife you're not gonna listen until she calms down and speaks respectfully? I've tried that, and it doesn't do any good. If people are completely outraged, you gotta give them some latitude and some understanding to get things calmed down.
If there was shooting involved, I might switch sides and join you.
I think our media reporting might be part of the negative picture. I wonder how much to believe.
I really like this article:
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/01/oregon-mandatory-minimums/422433/
The Atlantic about mandatory sentences. It goes from there.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/01/oregon-mandatory-minimums/422433/
The Atlantic about mandatory sentences. It goes from there.
Can someone give this thread a rating on how bad it is. 1 - Stoked please, 1 being worth reading and Stoked being completely ignore thread.
Sent from my LG-E970 using Tapatalk
Sent from my LG-E970 using Tapatalk
When either my wife or I start railing at the other we get put in our place. Hard. neither of us deserves, nor will we tolerate it, that treatment from the other.
I understand getting mad. Happens to all of us, all the time. But these are not random acts of anger. Perhaps they are in the moment but that anger has long sense subsided and people are thinking again. They are still performing the same acts though. In this OR case these men are still holding this federal wildlife cabin. They didn't sleep on it wake up and go "oh crap, this was dumb. Perhaps we should leave and actually build support for our cause to effect real change". Nope they doubled down on a bad idea.
No I support the others at the ranchers homes and those marching. Right on. But this splinter group breaking the law is simply foolish in this case.
I am sure there are other cases where I would have agreed with more assertive and aggressive actions.
So it's iffy. For me the where, when, how and why very much matter. But that's just me.
You are the expert on worthless posts. You have somewhere between 43,724 and 43,725
Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
Good discussion here. Until the last few posts I completely missed the equivalency between the inner city riot situation and this rancher situation. Maybe, just maybe, both sides of the political spectrum can pause for a moment and see the sense in what's going on at the other extreme, especially because they are both trying to address their problems in essentially the same way. I'm sure that most of the people in the middle would be extremely grateful for a little dose of sanity.
I wanna say pages 1-5 rate abour 4ish.
From around there it goes to hell with me bitching about the #nonmodsquad, and, well, NAOS. So 5-10 I'd probably say rate 2 at best. On about page 10 I went off the deep end and let NAOS have it... which ok, but not all that great. Maybe raised it back to a 5.
The last page or so has gotten back on topic. Prolly 5-6.
So no, it's likely not worth your time. But feel free to interject anyway.