I've left out anything that wasn't related to the Cliven Bundy controversy. Usernames have been redacted down to the initial character, except mine.
Apr 16 15:32:10 <C***> The BLM says it will "continue to work to resolve the matter administratively and judicially,"
Apr 16 15:32:11 <C***> heh
Apr 16 15:32:18 <C***> but not peacefully, lawfully, or respectfully
Apr 16 15:32:40 <C***> just, we will administer a ruling and pay judges to produce orders
Apr 16 15:32:51 <C***> im with the bundys
Apr 16 15:32:56 <C***> fuck the BLM
Apr 16 18:18:43 <TehWuzyl> C***: the land is owned by the federal government. What happened to property rights? http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2014/04/16/far-right-hypocrisy-in-nevada/
Apr 16 23:28:02 <C***> read the back story
Apr 16 23:28:09 <C***> it was taken by them
Apr 16 23:28:21 <C***> it may be "legal" but its not lawful
Apr 16 23:28:52 <C***> anything the State does is by definition "legal", if you haven't been paying attention
Apr 16 23:29:43 <C***> you really need to give the whole situation a thorough vetting or you will have the takeaway that its a bunch of tea partiers trying to pick a fight
Apr 16 23:30:01 <C***> which, gee, i wonder if that's the crafted message that would benefit any particular parties.... hmm.
Apr 16 23:35:04 <C***> honestly every mention of it in "the news" has been portraying it as a "right wing extremists unhappy with obama"
Apr 16 23:43:44 <C***> http://www.brasschecktv.com/videos/cia/blowing-the-whistle-on-cia-involvement-in-drug-dealing.html
Apr 16 23:43:45 <C***> damn
Apr 16 23:43:52 <C***> just DAMN
Apr 17 00:18:48 <C***> http://www.brasschecktv.com/videos/the-war-on-terror-is-a-fraud-1/the-boston-bombing---another-look.html
Apr 17 00:18:51 <C***> such pr
Apr 17 00:27:06 <C***> wow
Apr 17 00:27:12 <C***> the extent is impressive
Apr 17 00:27:31 <C***> its basically a documentary or maybe, case study is a better term
Apr 17 11:19:46 <C***> Yesterday, Vermont passed H.112, this country's first no-strings-attached law requiring the mandatory labeling of GMOs (genetically modified organisms), and outlawing the practice of labeling GMO-contaminated foods as "natural" or "all-natural."
Apr 17 11:51:14 <TehWuzyl> C***: no, it was always federal land. Even the right-wing media acknowledge this. They've been allowed to use the land through an arrangement going back to the 1870s. http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/04/12/The-Saga-of-Bundy-Ranch
Apr 17 11:56:11 <C***> "it was always federal land" completely false, but really this comes down to do you believe in the idea that the federal government has to follow the law, or that what they do is by definition law
Apr 17 12:28:14 <TehWuzyl> Yes, and so does Bundy. So the question is who owns the land.
Apr 17 12:30:59 <C***> if you want to ignore time and human factors, then yes you can boil it down to that simplistic approach
Apr 17 12:44:07 <TehWuzyl> This should be very simple. Who owns the property? Or are you arguing that property rights should be limited?
Apr 17 13:58:55 <C***> im arguing that there has been "a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object" which "evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism" . im all for someone standing up and saying 'enough' to that.
Apr 17 14:01:01 <C***> at every turn freedom is reduced and more and more of my daily life falls into some categorization that requires regulation "for my own good"
Apr 17 14:01:32 <C***> at some point this will lead to someone saying "no", it is as inevitable as gravity bringing an object downward
Apr 17 14:02:55 <C***> this is more about a government running amock than cows and grazing rights, turtles and environmentalism
Apr 17 14:03:32 <C***> the msm simply treats it as right wingers mad at dems and specifically obama
Apr 17 14:03:44 <C***> which is great for keeping us dumb and infighting
Apr 17 14:06:19 <C***> and i see it has worked on you, as you are simply able to brush aside all these very serious issues by saying 'who owns the land ', presumably meaning "right now" because as I said you're with most people who cannot see this issue alongside the time and human factor
Apr 17 14:06:42 <C***> a close friend did the same but with 'those damn tea partiers should just kill each other'
Apr 17 14:07:34 <C***> another win for TPTB, keep you from investigating the history, the evolution of the gov's involvement, the principles and laws used to extend the powers of the gov to where it is today
Apr 17 14:08:30 <C***> don't lets try to explore the why, how, when, etc... just "either you're with the gov or you're worth marginalizing and killing off"
Apr 17 14:10:46 <C***> sadly ironically, the clause that is used to justify the legal land grab is generally called the "necessary and proper" clause
Apr 17 14:20:23 <C***> every report im reading has already cast judgement on the issue
Apr 17 14:20:28 <C***> not one is written neutrally
Apr 17 14:20:58 <A***> I don't think people should own the land
Apr 17 14:21:01 <A***> we can't "own" a thing
Apr 17 14:21:03 <A***> that outlives us
Apr 17 14:21:08 <A***> we are merely stewards
Apr 17 14:21:26 <A***> we are guests in Gaias house
Apr 17 14:21:29 <A***> and she really hates when we shit the rug
Apr 17 14:21:33 <C***> "This is not play-acting, and the people involved are not rational. Those encouraging this highly irresponsible behavior as if it were just a show for their own amusement are seriously misreading the situation, and they are making the inevitable resolution much more difficult to achieve without bloodshed."
Apr 17 14:21:43 <C***> um, duh. go listen to the interviews with the people
Apr 17 14:21:47 <C***> not one of them takes this lightly
Apr 17 14:22:14 <C***> and the rational part... well, im not sure anyone could call our current government rational
Apr 17 14:23:10 <C***> btw the cia agent who turned over docs about cia running drugs into inner cities was suicided this week
Apr 17 14:23:31 <C***> obviously a rational move, both the drug running and the killing to cover it up!
Apr 17 14:25:42 <C***> a rational goverment doesn't issue warnings to its law enforcement groups to be weary of soldiers returning home, of people who show interest in the Constitution, of people who are members of groups seeking nonviolent change
Apr 17 14:26:34 <C***> these are moves done by an entity that loves to initiate force, because all of those groups i just listed detest the initiation of force
Apr 17 14:34:45 <Y***> C*** / TehWuzyl that was an interesting debate you guys have been having over last couple days
Apr 17 14:35:02 <Y***> sorta seems like in a way you guys are in agreement about some stuff but it isn't coming out in the debate
Apr 17 14:35:14 <C***> yes
Apr 17 14:35:23 <C***> there's whats on the face, and that is what is coming out in the msm
Apr 17 14:35:33 <C***> the details are what matter
Apr 17 14:35:53 <C***> cuz the initial, prema facia evidence is that "well this guys off his rocker"
Apr 17 14:35:55 <Y***> and also, it's being mixed with ideological / behavioural stances vs. what actually happens
Apr 17 14:37:03 <A***> i think it's sad that they are fighting about "owning" land
Apr 17 14:37:05 <A***> when we don't own shit
Apr 17 14:37:13 <A***> owning a thing, implies being able to destroy a thing
Apr 17 14:37:19 <A***> at best we 'lease' it from gaia
Apr 17 14:37:27 <Y***> a government is supposed to be by the people for the people, so it stands to reason that indeed, governments making laws are to be following them, because laws apply to people, a government is an insitution not a physical entity .. along the same lines as corporate personhood, as if a company as an insitution should be treated as an individual
Apr 17 14:37:35 <C***> bundy doesnt claim to own the land
Apr 17 14:37:41 <C***> he says the state owns it
Apr 17 14:37:49 <C***> its about state sovereignty in his mind
Apr 17 14:38:02 <TehWuzyl> I haven't even been reading the MSM accounts, but from what I'm getting from blogs and memes, he *is* off his rocker. So where's the counterargument?
Apr 17 14:38:07 <C***> but, yeah dont depend on the MSM to point that out
Apr 17 14:38:37 <C***> well you have read something, and all of it apparently is telling you the same thing.
Apr 17 14:38:40 <Y***> A*** thats the real deal, yes, we use land and resources from the earth, gaia. the working of creating rule systems that legalize abuse of the land and people by anyone else is also the real deal problem we have
Apr 17 14:38:45 <C***> that usually means to me that you're not getting the full story
Apr 17 14:38:48 <Y***> you can apply that to practically anything
Apr 17 14:38:52 <C***> try finding these coutner arguments
Apr 17 14:38:55 <C***> read them
Apr 17 14:39:10 <Y***> and the over-centralization of authority and resource gathering/distribution is making this problem worse, it amplifies that real problem
Apr 17 14:39:11 <C***> there are plenty of interviews with the guy on youtube
Apr 17 14:39:22 <A***> it's legalized land abuse, basically
Apr 17 14:39:26 <A***> because nature has no "economic value"
Apr 17 14:39:30 <A***> you don't price tag on it
Apr 17 14:39:30 <C***> yes yoss exactly, i thought of your water/dam/hydro situation
Apr 17 14:39:33 <Y***> and neither do people who don't matter to you
Apr 17 14:39:34 <A***> and that with no price tag is free.
Apr 17 14:39:38 <Y***> C***, yes
Apr 17 14:39:38 <TehWuzyl> I'd rather not spend time watching videos. If he has a case to make, he needs to post it somewhere.
Apr 17 14:39:43 <Y***> C*** its a perfect example of what i talk about
Apr 17 14:39:58 <C***> TehWuzyl, then you're being fed from a trough just like the rest of the zombies
Apr 17 14:40:10 <C***> "id rather not spend time knowing the other side"
Apr 17 14:40:15 <Y***> i think TehWuzyl is just saying he'd rather read the transcript rather than watch it
Apr 17 14:40:20 <TehWuzyl> That.
Apr 17 14:40:31 <TehWuzyl> It's much harder to glean information from a video.
Apr 17 14:40:37 <TehWuzyl> Especially if they ramble.
Apr 17 14:40:46 <C***> atually it is a lot more appropriate to see the human talk
Apr 17 14:40:51 <C***> watch his body language
Apr 17 14:40:57 <C***> see how he emphasizes
Apr 17 14:41:00 <TehWuzyl> It suggests that he doesn't actually have a case, and is hoping people will buy an emotional appeal.
Apr 17 14:41:05 <C***> you lose a huge amount of communication in a transcript
Apr 17 14:41:12 <TehWuzyl> That's the emotional appeal.
Apr 17 14:41:20 <TehWuzyl> If it can't be explained in text, then I don't think there's a case.
Apr 17 14:41:51 <C***> well then lets all stop being human and communicate with text messages
Apr 17 14:41:56 <C***> you're dead wrong, sir
Apr 17 14:42:15 <C***> the laws may be words but we're humans
Apr 17 14:43:03 <C***> this same 'who cares' attitude is how we've gotten to a point where most of the population can say 'owell, leth im die' with zero care
Apr 17 14:43:28 <C***> if it was your family whose livelihood was being threatened i bet you'd have a whole different slant
Apr 17 14:43:43 <C***> even though it's perfectly legal
Apr 17 14:43:55 <C***> perhaps this is a sign that the laws and legality aren't exactly right?
Apr 17 14:44:05 <C***> no, that can't be, the State is always right, right??
Apr 17 14:45:37 <C***> who cares, he broke the law!
Apr 17 14:45:55 <A***> the caldari state
Apr 17 14:45:55 <C***> so has most of congress, the president, and hundreds of multi millionaires
Apr 17 14:45:58 <A***> coming soon to an earth naery ou.
Apr 17 14:46:02 <C***> but hell, lets go kill this rancher family
Apr 17 14:46:05 <C***> thats top priority.
Apr 17 14:46:28 * TehWuzyl shakes head
Apr 17 14:46:53 <TehWuzyl> Who was just talking about the importance of obeying the law?
Apr 17 14:47:04 <C***> keep on shakin while you're taxed to death, and half those taxes are wasted, and half of whats left s spent on things you disagree with
Apr 17 14:47:09 <TehWuzyl> The law doesn't care how you emphasize words. It case what the words are.
Apr 17 14:47:20 <TehWuzyl> s/case/cares/
Apr 17 14:47:36 <C***> and if the law is wrong?
Apr 17 14:47:41 <C***> what then?
Apr 17 14:47:44 <A***> an unjust law must not be followed
Apr 17 14:47:49 <A***> but try telling that to the state police
Apr 17 14:47:54 <TehWuzyl> If you're arguing that the law is wrong, then that's a point that can be made.
Apr 17 14:48:01 <TehWuzyl> So, why is the law wrong in this case?
Apr 17 14:48:04 <C***> BUNDY IS MAKING THAT POINT
Apr 17 14:48:09 <C***> you fuckwad you're wasting my time
Apr 17 14:48:11 <TehWuzyl> What is is point?
Apr 17 14:48:16 <TehWuzyl> s/is/his/
Apr 17 14:48:18 <C***> nevermind
Apr 17 14:48:29 <C***> you're an intelligence suck
Apr 17 14:48:33 <TehWuzyl> If you can't explain the point, then how do you know there really is one?
Apr 17 14:49:04 <TehWuzyl> You might just be hearing the emotion in his voice and agreeing that he must be being wronged somehow.
Apr 17 14:49:34 <TehWuzyl> But it's easy to sound wronged in a way that people find convincing.
Apr 17 14:49:45 <C***> yeah that's it, i've fallen like a dizzy housewife for him
Apr 17 14:49:53 <TehWuzyl> It's easy to manipulate people into making stupid choices and agreeing with bad ideas through personal charisma.
Apr 17 14:49:54 <C***> when you haven't even watched VIDEO ONE
Apr 17 14:50:01 <TehWuzyl> That's how TV preachers get paid.
Apr 17 14:50:41 <TehWuzyl> So where are all these videos? Is there one where he makes a convincing case?
Apr 17 14:51:00 <C***> im not sure where you could find videos online in a searchable way...
Apr 17 14:51:06 <A***> i've read one article about that cattle guy, and it was on DM
Apr 17 14:51:14 <A***> and DM hyped the fuck out of it so bad, that i couldn't finish reading it
Apr 17 14:51:18 <A***> they basically called it waco 2.0
Apr 17 14:51:24 <C***> haha why would you watch DM
Apr 17 14:51:29 <C***> painful
Apr 17 14:51:29 <A***> trash
Apr 17 14:51:31 <A***> becasue it's trashy
Apr 17 14:51:40 <A***> and it's one of the few enws sites besides fawx that isn't firewalled at work
Apr 17 14:51:42 <A***> (think about that)
Apr 17 14:51:45 <TehWuzyl> So don't give me a hard time about not having watched it.
Apr 17 14:51:46 <C***> /shudder
Apr 17 14:51:52 <A***> i work with law enforcement
Apr 17 14:51:55 <A***> they all worship faux news
Apr 17 14:51:59 <C***> see here's the problem TehWuzyl
Apr 17 14:52:28 <C***> you're so dumb you didnt realize that was entirely a joke:
Apr 17 14:52:28 <C***> <C***> im not sure where you could find videos online in a searchable way...
Apr 17 14:52:36 <TehWuzyl> I went to YouTube already.
Apr 17 14:52:48 <TehWuzyl> All I see are third-party accounts -- too many to go through.
Apr 17 14:52:49 <C***> they have htis thing called a search box
Apr 17 14:52:58 <TehWuzyl> https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=bundy+defends+land+usage
Apr 17 14:53:21 <TehWuzyl> Which one of those has Bundy (or someone taking his position) explaining WTF his point is?
Apr 17 14:53:23 <C***> god forbid you get to hear different points of view
Apr 17 14:53:40 <TehWuzyl> I've been asking all along for what his point is.
Apr 17 14:53:46 <C***> don't worry, stay nesteld in your statist mindset that anyone challenging the gov is obviously wrong.
Apr 17 14:53:50 <TehWuzyl> You don't seem to know what it is either.
Apr 17 14:54:01 <TehWuzyl> Or at least you don't trust yourself to explain it right.
Apr 17 14:54:17 <C***> sometimes it is best heard from the horse's mouth
Apr 17 14:54:30 <C***> why would i paraphrase what is plastered on 100 youtube vids
Apr 17 14:54:32 <TehWuzyl> And you've got this fixed idea that anyone who is skeptical isn't willing to listen at all.
Apr 17 14:54:37 <C***> none of which you seem to be able to find
Apr 17 14:54:43 <TehWuzyl> Because I don't have time to watch 100 videos.
Apr 17 14:54:52 <TehWuzyl> Give me the fucking synopsis already.
Apr 17 14:55:38 <TehWuzyl> Or even, at this point, a link to VIDEO ONE where he explains himself.
Apr 17 14:56:41 <TehWuzyl> Maybe this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBIWQxg1jYA
Apr 17 14:56:48 <TehWuzyl> The summary sounds promising.
Apr 17 14:57:49 <TehWuzyl> Aha -- there's an explanation in the video details.
Apr 17 14:58:12 <TehWuzyl> "My great grandpa bought the rights to the Bunkerville allotment back in 1887 around there. Then he sold them to my grandpa who then turned them over to my dad in 1972."
Apr 17 14:58:29 <TehWuzyl> "These men bought and paid for their rights to the range and also built waters, fences and roads to assure the servival of their cattle, all with their own money, not with tax dollars. These rights to the land use is called preemptive rights. Some where down the line, to keep the cows from over grazing, came the bureau of land management."
Apr 17 14:59:11 <A***> theyu need to call it the "ministry of land management'
Apr 17 14:59:14 <A***> it sounds creepier that way.
Apr 17 14:59:18 <TehWuzyl> My understanding is that "the range" does not include the land under dispute. The fedgov allowed use of that land for grazing, but did not sell him *rights* to do that. His continued use was at their discretion.
Apr 17 14:59:34 <TehWuzyl> "They were supposed to assist the ranchers in the management of their ranges while the ranchers paid a yearly allotment which was to be use to pay the BLM wages and to help with repaires and improvements of the ranches."
Apr 17 14:59:49 <TehWuzyl> There should be a document somewhere which spells this all out.
Apr 17 15:00:16 <TehWuzyl> Probably more than one document, actually: a deed and a map, at a minimum.
Apr 17 15:00:25 <C***> dated what?
Apr 17 15:00:37 <TehWuzyl> 1870-something
Apr 17 15:00:49 <TehWuzyl> "My dad did pay his grazing fees for years to the BLM until they were no longer using his fees to help him and to improve. Instead they began using these money's against the ranchers. They bought all the rest of the ranchers in the area out with they're own grazing fees."
Apr 17 15:01:16 <TehWuzyl> The implication is that the help and improvement was part of the deal, but again that would need to be in the contract. It may not have been.
Apr 17 15:01:32 <TehWuzyl> "When they offered to buy my dad out for a penence he said no thanks and then fired them because they weren't doing their job. He quit paying the BLM but, tried giving his grazing fees to the county, which they turned down."
Apr 17 15:01:59 <TehWuzyl> He "fired them"? That doesn't sound like something that one can do. Not sure what he means by this.
Apr 17 15:02:17 <TehWuzyl> "So my dad just went on running his ranch and making his own improvements with his own equipment and his own money, not taxes. In essence the BLM was managing my dad out of business"
Apr 17 15:02:28 <C***> you can end a contract once the other side stops respecting it
Apr 17 15:02:55 <C***> no ones ever taken the fed gov to task over them disregarding contracts
Apr 17 15:02:58 <TehWuzyl> So they need to produce this contract -- deed -- whatever.
Apr 17 15:03:00 <C***> maybe some indian tribes
Apr 17 15:03:11 <C***> do you think they'd care?
Apr 17 15:03:22 <TehWuzyl> Are you trying to convince them, or convince me?
Apr 17 15:03:22 <C***> he has to yield because of some tortoise
Apr 17 15:03:46 <TehWuzyl> My sympathies at the moment are with the tortoise. I'm *trying* to see the other side, however.
Apr 17 15:04:08 <C***> one funny sad note was that when the ranchers insepcted the area where the BLM made camp, they had squashed a turtle lair or house or w/e
Apr 17 15:04:27 <TehWuzyl> Ultimately, the contract would either make it clear who was in the right, or else would show that there was legitimate cause for a dispute.
Apr 17 15:04:35 <C***> there you go again
Apr 17 15:04:36 <TehWuzyl> ...and then they could take it up in court.
Apr 17 15:04:38 <C***> for you law == right
Apr 17 15:04:52 <C***> who here believes laws are written to protect individuals
Apr 17 15:05:14 <TehWuzyl> You go back and forth between saying that the fedgov is ignoring the law, on the one hand, and implying that the law is unfair, on the other.
Apr 17 15:05:16 <TehWuzyl> Which is it?
Apr 17 15:05:18 <C***> anything written int he past half century was written for big business
Apr 17 15:05:34 <C***> well both actually
Apr 17 15:05:40 <TehWuzyl> Can't have it both ways.
Apr 17 15:05:53 <TehWuzyl> Unless you mean they're not *even* following the law, and also the law is unfair.
Apr 17 15:05:58 <C***> there are lots of laws here
Apr 17 15:06:01 <C***> many conflicting
Apr 17 15:06:15 <TehWuzyl> I'm talking about the laws applicable to this particular dispute.
Apr 17 15:07:09 <C***> "here"
Apr 17 15:07:20 <C***> not "here" as "in the US"
Apr 17 15:07:31 <C***> "here" as in "applying in this situation"
Apr 17 15:07:41 <TehWuzyl> Okay.
Apr 17 15:07:51 <C***> having to explain stuff like that
Apr 17 15:07:52 <TehWuzyl> Is the fedgov violating some of those laws, in your opinion?
Apr 17 15:07:55 <C***> sand in my gears
Apr 17 15:08:01 <C***> dimishes my will to type to you
Apr 17 15:08:10 <TehWuzyl> (I thought you meant "in that jurisdiction")
Apr 17 15:08:36 <TehWuzyl> Having to deal with people who won't explain their position is sand in my gears, too.
Apr 17 15:08:48 <C***> ok here goes
Apr 17 15:08:55 <C***> the State routinely oversteps its bounds
Apr 17 15:09:01 <TehWuzyl> (...won't explain their position and yet think I'm closed-minded for not immediately agreeing with them.)
Apr 17 15:09:08 <C***> courts are paid for to ensure that it is "legal"
Apr 17 15:10:15 <TehWuzyl> I assume that's just background information and you'll soon be explaining what laws the fedgov is breaking.
Apr 17 15:10:16 <C***> acts of violence by the gov are becoming more frequent
Apr 17 15:10:29 <C***> acts that directly contradict the rule of law
Apr 17 15:10:48 <TehWuzyl> (yes, and where was the Tea Party when the Occupy protesters were getting pepper-sprayed? Okay, that's a side-issue...)
Apr 17 15:10:50 <C***> this instance is one where he has never been given a day in court in front of a jury of his peers, for example
Apr 17 15:10:59 <TehWuzyl> Has he asked for one?
Apr 17 15:11:37 <C***> i can only assume he has, he said he was never given a day in court
Apr 17 15:11:55 <TehWuzyl> I wouldn't assume that.
Apr 17 15:12:19 <C***> i bet he doesn't want to spend a hundred grand in legal fees to challenge the federal government, either
Apr 17 15:12:38 <C***> cuz we all have that kind of disposable income
Apr 17 15:12:47 <TehWuzyl> If he's not willing to make a case in court, then what, exactly, does he expect to happen?
Apr 17 15:12:53 <C***> his solution was to tell them no
Apr 17 15:13:10 <C***> the fallout is his to bear the brunt
Apr 17 15:13:16 <TehWuzyl> Then... I don't see why we're supposed to agree with him.
Apr 17 15:13:18 <C***> and they were expecting that
Apr 17 15:14:12 <C***> you're right, we should just accept what they do and not try to fight them in courts that they own, judged by people who they pay
Apr 17 15:14:14 <TehWuzyl> So basically, he's convinced he's right and he doesn't care what anyone else thinks.
Apr 17 15:14:24 <C***> pretty much yes
Apr 17 15:14:31 <TehWuzyl> Too bad.
Apr 17 15:14:37 <C***> that doesn't mean he's not right
Apr 17 15:14:42 <C***> that means he doesnt care what you think
Apr 17 15:14:55 <TehWuzyl> It means I can't see how he is right, and he's not going to get much sympathy from outside his immediate circles.
Apr 17 15:15:33 <C***> a lot of other things mean you can't see how he is right
Apr 17 15:15:56 <TehWuzyl> I still don't even understand what the basic argument is.
Apr 17 15:16:05 <TehWuzyl> Is the law fair, or not?
Apr 17 15:16:31 <TehWuzyl> Does property ownership trump usage, or not?
Apr 17 15:17:32 <A***> Do
Apr 17 15:17:50 <A***> lol i typed that as cbyer egg
Apr 17 15:17:54 <A***> CBY ER EGGH
Apr 17 15:17:58 <A***> i need to lay off the crazy
Apr 17 15:20:03 <TehWuzyl> ...and if the law is unfair, what is unfair about it?
Apr 17 15:20:30 <TehWuzyl> The whole thing about government violence is a legit ethical issue, but I don't see how it affects this particular disagreement.
Apr 17 15:25:14 <TehWuzyl> ...and the idea that a single individual can decide to break laws that others agree with, and feel righteous in doing so, isn't how civilization works.
Apr 17 15:25:34 <TehWuzyl> (make that "that *most* others agree with")
Apr 18 10:41:00 <C***> In response, Texas Republican Rep. Steve Stockman sent a letter to Barack Obama, Department of the Interior Sec. Sally Jewell, and BLM Director Neil Kornze, laying out his position that any such action by the agency would violate the U.S. Constitution.
Apr 18 10:41:06 <C***> "Because of this standoff," he wrote, "I have looked into BLM's authority to conduct such paramilitary raids against American citizens, and it appears that BLM is acting in a lawless manner in Nevada."
Apr 18 10:41:18 <C***> He cited the limited powers granted to the federal government, noting the bureau has no "right to assume preemptory police powers, that role being reserved to the States," and explained "many federal laws require the federal government to seek assistance from local law enforcement whenever the use of force may become necessary."
Apr 18 10:41:24 <C***> The letter included a section of the U.S. Code – 43 U.S.C. Section 1733, Subsection C – stating exactly that point.
Apr 18 10:42:03 <C***> "Indeed," Stockman wrote, "the exact type of crisis that the federal government has provoked at the Bundy ranch is the very type of incident that Congress knew could be avoided by relying on local law enforcement officials."
Apr 18 10:43:07 <C***> Byers, Texas along the Red River – The BLM stole 140 acres of the Tommy Henderson ranch thirty years ago. They took his land and paid him absolutely nothing. He sued and lost. Now the BLM is using that court case as precedent to do it again. The problem is, the land they want to seize is property that ranchers have a deed for and have paid taxes on for over a hundred years.
Apr 18 10:43:20 <C***> The BLM claims that about 90,000 acres (116 miles along the Red River) have never belonged to Texas in the first place. They will seize the land and it will seriously change the boundaries between the two states.
Apr 18 15:22:51 <TehWuzyl> Submitted without comment; http://player.theplatform.com/p/2E2eJC/EmbeddedOffSite?guid=n_maddow_1bund_140416
Apr 18 18:27:23 <C***> best, most fair article I've seen written on it http://original.antiwar.com/lucy/2014/04/16/bundy-ranch-and-the-new-age-of-anti-fed-standoffs/
Apr 18 18:39:52 <C***> heh maddow
Apr 18 18:39:57 <C***> may as well watch oreilly
Apr 18 18:40:16 <C***> talk about emotional harping and antagonistic "journalism"
Apr 18 18:55:47 <TehWuzyl> It included several clips from O'Reilly, actually.
PM with Y***
Apr 18 19:53:53 <Y***> hey dude ;)
Apr 18 19:54:26 <Y***> just wanted to mention, i finally got through the scrollback in #wetheppl, you did a great job of fielding C***'s obviously emotionally-charged debate points
Apr 18 19:54:51 <Y***> imo anyway
Apr 18 20:43:29 <TehWuzyl> Thanks... I had to bite my tongue so I wouldn't start another round with that last bunch of stuff he posted, but the video seemed like a reasonable contribution...
Apr 18 20:43:56 <TehWuzyl> (He kept demanding that I needed to watch videos that he couldn't identify, for one thing.)
Apr 18 20:45:12 <TehWuzyl> I'm going to have to think about his objections to defending positions in text.
Apr 18 20:46:01 <TehWuzyl> I think he's very wrong about that, but it's taken awhile to begin working out why...
Apr 18 20:46:58 <TehWuzyl> ...and I think it comes down to the fact that if you're debating with emotions and not facts, then it's basically whoever sounds the most aggrieved or believable wins the argument -- even if they're absolutely lying or mistaken about what's actually happening.
Apr 18 20:48:34 <TehWuzyl> The Maddow piece helped me understand a bit more where they might be coming from. I still think it's kind of ludicrous, but I can at least see the emotional appeal of their position... if you care more about farming than endangered species, I guess...
Apr 18 20:49:18 <TehWuzyl> I think the problem is that they see "the government" as this faceless monolith that orders people around because it can.
Apr 18 20:49:35 <TehWuzyl> And there's certainly some truth to that in many of the things it does.
Apr 18 20:50:12 <TehWuzyl> A lot of what the government does, as far as I can tell, is solely for the private benefit of those who hold the most influence over it. (There's recently been science to support this conclusion, too -- let me know if you haven't seen the MSM on this.)
Apr 18 20:51:13 <TehWuzyl> But in this case, it's one person's priorities (cattle grazing) over the priorities of *many* others (ecological preservation), most of them regular people without any special power.
Apr 18 20:52:03 <TehWuzyl> The interests of the Powers That Be happen to be aligned with the interests of the Bundys in this case.
Apr 18 20:52:39 <TehWuzyl> The PTB don't want lands set aside for ecological preservation or national parks. They want everything to be privately ownable.
Apr 18 20:53:38 <TehWuzyl> But they're not the *friends* of people like the Bundys and their supporters; their interests just happen to coincide in this case. The PTB are *using* the Bundys and the gun-nuts as pawns for their own ends.
Apr 18 20:54:01 <TehWuzyl> And it sads me that people like that -- and like C*** -- apparently can't even begin to see this.
Apr 18 20:56:10 <TehWuzyl> They can't even begin to frame their objections in terms that lead to a sane discussion.
Apr 18 20:56:46 <TehWuzyl> They don't even, apparently, *understand* the terms in which any discussion might be framed.
Apr 18 20:57:12 <TehWuzyl> They object to the very idea, apparently -- or at least Egg did -- of the existence of objective terms as grounds for such discussion.
Apr 18 20:57:32 <TehWuzyl> They end up supporting "might makes right", and somehow thinking that they're striking a blow for liberty.
Apr 18 20:58:41 <TehWuzyl> ...when they've basically just created the moral justification for the government to do to them exactly what they're afraid it's going to do -- what the rightwingosphere wants them to believe is going to happen.
Apr 18 21:00:27 <TehWuzyl> It absolutely blows my mind that they think they can win against the government in an armed confrontation, *unless* they grant that the government has ethical constraints (which the only reason the gov backed down -- because they didn't want another mass killing like Waco).
Apr 18 21:09:08 <TehWuzyl> Of course, a lot of the stuff that they say -- Bundy in particular -- kind of blows my mind as well. Ignorance on parade.
Apr 18 21:09:52 <TehWuzyl> ...and this from reading the link that Egg posted as being a good one. It doesn't argue in their favor.
Apr 18 21:14:10 <TehWuzyl> (Oh, wait, I've been reading a WaPo article that Egg's article linked to -- my mistake.)
Apr 18 21:18:22 <TehWuzyl> Ok, in Egg's article, this is the only part that seems to be making a case for Bundy's side:
Apr 18 21:18:25 <TehWuzyl> "But if the grazing fees are bad, and the BLM is too powerful – and let's say they are, considering that the federal government owns an enormous 47 percent of land in the west, including 87 percent of Nevada – then a reckless fellow like Bundy is just the person most likely to push back."
Apr 18 21:20:33 <TehWuzyl> There's room for debate on that question -- not much, but some. I don't see how this confrontation aids that debate, however. It's almost straw-man advocacy (which is what happened to the 9/11 Truth movement, for example): provide a puppet to make one side of the argument look really stupid, and most rational people will quickly run away from it (and over to the side you want them to take).