US Politics: I am a blatant racist and that will give unfair advantages to minorities or something

[awesome possum]

As it is, it just sounds like a bit of whinging about something you imagine somebody implied.

Welcome to the world of The Knee Slapper. When his terrible arguments are inevitably torn down, he resorts to whining and pretending to be bullied. He has not, in my opinion, earned the right to be treated with anything other than scorn and bemusement.

Can you guys maybe, just maybe, find some sympathy for the fears of the dreaded Militia Movement now, after reading Commodore's link? Keep in mind the majority of them are non-violent and espouse no racial ideology. They may have wacky theories to explain this stuff, and their solutions may be ill-advised, but it seems to me that they are responding to a very real problem: the growth of the security/surveillance state and militarization of law enforcement/federal bureaucracies. If they are guilty of paranoia, the Feds are even more so

Yes, I feel sympathy for people who put women and children on the front lines so that if shooting starts, they're the first slaughtered.

The militarization of the police in this country is something that we should all be concerned if not outright terrified of, but you're sadly mistaken if you think that means we should embrace groups of far right idiots who stand up for what they believe in by using children as human shields.

[Lightysnake88]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/04/18/harry-reid-defends-domestic-terrorists-comments/

Cliven Bundy, for failure to pay fees to the Feds: DOMESTIC TERRORIST

Nadil Malik Hassan, for shooting dead 13 people whilst screaming Allah u Akbar: DISGRUNTLED CO-WORKER

You are aware what the code of military justice has to say about this whole thing?

[Lightysnake88]

His beef was not that he had to pay fees to the Feds, his beef was that the Feds refused to use the fees for the purpose THEY had promised him, and other ranchers, it would be used for, to maintain and improve the land.

Have a source for that?

And it doesn't matter. They own the land, he doesn't. He wants to use it, they charge him fees. That's how it works

[Inigima]

You're seriously defending Timothy McVeigh? What the fuck is wrong with you?

That doesn't actually seem to be an attempt at a defense.

[sologdin]

yeah, whatever. if the united states wanted to crush these pitiful little bands, it've happened already.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

OAR,

Law enforcement, the military, and the overall national security apparatus of this country has gotten way out of control- but it gets the attention of the National Review when the FDA gets involved. I'm going to go ahead and say there are far bigger issues than the DoE or FDA having law enforcement branches, which are just absurd symptoms of national security bloat, and not the actual problem. But what do the rightwing scare mongers peddle to rile up batshit militia men? Some jackass who refused to recognize the Federal government and pay some fees and, hey, did you hear that the FDA has a SWAT team? Give me a break. The right wing and the militia gets outraged over police and national security abuses only when it affects a very specific type of person, they're perfectly content for state power to be used against the less worthy types.

As a long time boarder who has always been right of center you should know that there are a number of us who are consistently opposed to the security State regardless of which party holds the White House or Congress.

[Lord Mord]

Manhole,

Non-violent doesn't really fly for me when you're describing a group of people who are amassing firearms and ammunition. If you are truly non-violent, you wouldn't have the desire or need to join or form an armed militia.

Indeed. It's too bad these same people couldn't be gotten together in the same numbers but for the attraction of gun culture to lure them. If only their cause itself and their desire for everyone's betterment were enough to motivate and unite them.

Bring arms to the revolution, and you demonstrate that the only way you know how, or any your best and preferred way to make your point, is at gunpoint. And what was so wrong about taxation again?

[Galactus]

Can you guys maybe, just maybe, find some sympathy for the fears of the dreaded Militia Movement now, after reading Commodore's link?

Not really. Most of their fears aren't actually based on reality. The kinds of dangers the militraization of the police force leads to (which are real) aren't really the kinds of danger the militia movement worries about.

And of course, the best way to ensure a demilitarization of the police force would be effective gun control, but try to tell that to them :p

[Lord Mord]

grumdin,

His beef was not that he had to pay fees to the Feds, his beef was that the Feds refused to use the fees for the purpose THEY had promised him, and other ranchers, it would be used for, to maintain and improve the land.

I asked before -- perhaps you didn't see it. Where and how were those promises made?

How does the law address this kind of idea, btw? If I sign a lease on my apartment with the rep on desk at the time telling me that a portion of the rent collected is socked away in a side-fund for building a new pool, how long of living here without a pool before I can start not paying my rent?

[Galactus]

McVeigh was not a white supremacist. His stated reason for his appalling act was the Federal government burning to death 76 men, women and children in Waco Texas in 1993. The militia movements range from libertarians, constitutionalists, sovereign Christians and states rights advocates. Race is decidedly not a big issue for them. You should stop reading garbage pumped out by left wing hate groups and maybe go do some research for yourself.

"States rights" means racist. Any look at a history book would show you this.

[Mazigh]

"States rights" means racist. Any look at a history book would show you this.

It means the states get rights A look at any dictionary would show you that

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Galactus,

"States rights" means racist. Any look at a history book would show you this.

That's a pretty broad statement. Because I support retained State soveriegnty in the US Constitutional system (frequently shorthanded to "States Rights") I'm a racist?

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

grumdin,

I asked before -- perhaps you didn't see it. Where and how were those promises made?

How does the law address this kind of idea, btw? If I sign a lease on my apartment with the rep on desk at the time telling me that a portion of the rent collected is socked away in a side-fund for building a new pool, how long of living here without a pool before I can start not paying my rent?

I'm guessing that grumdin is referring to the protection of the Desert Tortoise, which the BLM used as reasoning for increasing fees for ranchers using federal land for grazing. Not really a promise so much as an excuse.

And your example is fitting methinks. If Bundy felt that the reason for the fee hike was bullshit, he should've found an alternative. Simply refusing to pay while continuing to use the land was not a viable alternative.

[MerenthaClone]

"States rights" means racist. Any look at a history book would show you this.

Well, more accurately, the biggest "states rights" fight was over race, and they're often still over race, and most of the "states rights" people (ie, those that actually use that label) tend to try to use it to defend their right to discriminate against somebody (often, but not always based on race), but it doesn't mean racist. Its just the biggest, overwhelming reason people get active in "states rights" movement.

Constitutionalists are also funny, because they're "defending the Constitution except for the bits we don't like which are legally part of the Constitution", ie the Amendments. Funnily enough, the one they tend to complain about the most is the 14th...but they love the 2nd amendment. That one is in the Constitution, dontcha know.

Libertarians aren't exactly racist, at least not directly. The entire philosophy as created by most US libertarians is basically that the world works along principles (that it totally doesn't) and that it doesn't matter what any of the consequences are for anything as long as those principles are followed. In this sense, they're not deliberately racist, they just tend to support policies that have the effect of being discriminatory based on several factors, all of which can be summed up as "not being white, rich, and male". Whether that is the intended effect or the byproduct of those policies is up to someone else to determine. Some libertarians don't think through to the consequences, and others do. The first are short-sighted and the others malicious (and racist).

Sovereign Christians: I don't even know. Knock yourself out, go exile yourself somewhere and go back to living in the 18th century. Just don't force your kids to do it, don't try to force me to do it, and don't try to force anyone else to do it. And for fuck's sake don't come near an abortion clinic or women's shelter (unless you wish to utilize their services, in which case, please, be welcome.) Also get vaccinated.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

That doesn't actually seem to be an attempt at a defense.

Sure it was. He defended McVeigh against the charge of racism, and claimed the association of racism with McVeigh and the militia movement was the product of 'left wing hate.'

OAR,

As a long time boarder who has always been right of center you should know that there are a number of us who are consistently opposed to the security State regardless of which party holds the White House or Congress.

And I can respect that, but I can't and won't respect bullshit from the National Review. I can't and won't respect the militia movement either, or buy the argument that they're opposed to the security State and nothing more- they're dangerous armed far right groups with a history of racism. And it shouldn't escape anyone for a moment that their rise in this country came after the most open forms of institutional and state-backed racism were ended.

And I reject the idea that anyone who has been paying attention to the growth of the national security state in recent times, or has a sense of the use of law enforcement and state power historically, should give a shit that the National Review now cares because the FDA or DoE (and what they really dislike isn't overexpanded law enforcement powers, but these agencies themselves) have law enforcement branches. No, this isn't particularly scary, interesting, or concerning. And, no, it doesn't change the way I feel about dangerous far right militias.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

And I reject the idea that anyone who has been paying attention to the growth of the national security state in recent times, or has a sense of the use of law enforcement and state power historically, should give a shit that the National Review now cares because the FDA or DoE (and what they really dislike isn't overexpanded law enforcement powers, but these agencies themselves) have law enforcement branches. No, this isn't particularly scary, interesting, or concerning. And, no, it doesn't change the way I feel about dangerous far right militias.

While I agree with everything else you posted, I have to disagree with this last bit. That the FDA and DoE feel the need to field their own SWAT teams says something about where we are at as a society. I don't particularly care what the National Review has to say about it, but it is at the very least concerning.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

OAR,

Using a SWAT team on a dairy selling raw milk is not an incredible overreach? Regulatory agencies like the FDA having SWAT teams isn't incredibly weird? They aren't sharp end of the spear law enforcement agencies they are food and Agriculture saftey specialists. Why do they need dedicated SWAT teams? Can't they call the FBI if they need SWAT?

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

OAR,

Using a SWAT team on a dairy selling raw milk is not an incredible overreach? Regulatory agencies like the FDA having SWAT teams isn't incredibly weird? They aren't sharp end of the spear law enforcement agencies they are food and Agriculture saftey specialists. Why do they need dedicated SWAT teams? Can't they call the FBI if they need SWAT?

That's the part that makes absolutely no sense to me at all. What sort of emergent situation is the FDA dealing with that they can't work in conjunction with local law enforcement to deal with?

[OnionAhaiReborn]

While is agree with everything else you posted, I have to disagree with this last bit. That the FDA and DoE feel the need to field their own SWAT teams says something about where we are at as a society. I don't particularly care what the National Review has to say about it, but it is at the very least concerning.

OAR,

Using a SWAT team on a dairy selling raw milk is not an incredible overreach? Regulatory agencies like the FDA having SWAT teams isn't incredibly weird? They aren't sharp end of the spear law enforcement agencies they are food and Agriculture saftey specialists. Why do they need dedicated SWAT teams? Can't they call the FBI if they need SWAT?

No, I don't think regulatory agencies need their own law enforcement branches, I think it's part of the trend of bloat in law enforcement and national security and it's absurd. But do you think it would be better if they called the FBI to conduct the raid for them, or it would it still be an incredible overreach to have heavily armed FBI law enforcement agents conducting raids in these types of situations? My position is that it would still be an overreach, but the fact that the FDA or DoE themselves headed the raid isn't cause for particular concern. It's slightly novel that regulatory agencies have law enforcement branches, but these cases are far far far from the most outrageous examples of overreach out there.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

No, I don't think regulatory agencies need their own law enforcement branches, I think it's part of the trend of bloat in law enforcement and national security and it's absurd. But do you think it would be better if they called the FBI to conduct the raid for them, or it would it still be an incredible overreach to have heavily armed FBI law enforcement agents conducting raids in these types of situations? My position is that it would still be an overreach, but the fact that the FDA or DoE themselves headed the raid isn't cause for particular concern. It's slightly novel that regulatory agencies have law enforcement branches, but these cases are far far far from the most outrageous examples of overreach out there.

Eh, novel is not the first word that comes to mind. Excessive, perhaps.