US Politics: Meet the New Right, same as the Old Right

[DanteGabriel]

Now who's trying to change the subject?

Yes OK, you've said that like a zillion times, cool I'm happy to accept Bundy the crook, now what laws has he broken and what evidence can you cite?

For me, the subject is your persistent dishonesty and either unwillingness or inability to argue in good faith.

I keep saying it, but since you can't seem to remember more than a post back, you have mischaracterized Bundy's actions by minimizing them and attempted to inflate my arguments beyond the words I used.

If you're still asking me for "proof" of Bundy's misdeeds, it doesn't seem like you actually accept the argument that Bundy is a crook. Or is "crook" different from "criminal?" I'm just wondering how you're going to conveniently abuse semantics to wriggle out of shit again.

[Seli]

Good point. I did assume that the woman could have obtained abortion legally, but in this day and age, it is not such a fair or sound assumption any more.

I am, however, not convinced that "access to all possible help" is a good metric. We do not give similar considerations to other criminals, right? If a woman kinaps a baby and forcfeed the baby cocaine, I don't think we'd be talking about whether the hypothetical kidnapper should be held accountable for her actions based on whether she has access to all possible help.

I'm not happy to consider someone with drug issues (a medical problem) either fully accountable or unaccountable. But rather have a bias to the side of caution.

[grumdin]

He violated a court order. Arguably he interfered with law enforcement officers attempting to do their jobs. This is so simple it beggars belief that the flaws in your argument have failed to penetrate your evidently potent Never Wrong zone.

And yet, within minutes of promising to be very careful with your words, you kept insisting that all he's done is lose a civil case.

Yes and if you think violating a court order in a civil dispute makes one a law breaker then OK Bundy's a criminal. And dude it's not me clinging desperately to untenable arguments. Now that we've established that you believe criminality occurs from failure to obey a civil court order could you please go on to provide evidence for your other assertion that a militia army was threatening federal officials?

[DanteGabriel]

Yes and if you think violating a court order in a civil dispute makes one a law breaker then OK Bundy's a criminal. And dude it's not me clinging desperately to untenable arguments. Now that we've established that you believe criminality occurs from failure to obey a civil court order could you please go on to provide evidence for your other assertion that a militia army was threatening federal officials?

This doesn't seem like an actual acknowledgement. Sorry, no points for obvious bad faith. Try again.

Has Cliven Bundy done anything wrong besides lose a civil dispute with the federal government?

[grumdin]

For me, the subject is your persistent dishonesty and either unwillingness or inability to argue in good faith.

I keep saying it, but since you can't seem to remember more than a post back, you have mischaracterized Bundy's actions by minimizing them and attempted to inflate my arguments beyond the words I used.

If you're still asking me for "proof" of Bundy's misdeeds, it doesn't seem like you actually accept the argument that Bundy is a crook. Or is "crook" different from "criminal?" I'm just wondering how you're going to conveniently abuse semantics to wriggle out of shit again.

Why not just admit that you hate Bundy and his supporters and you threw out some unsubstantiated allegations based on your subjective opinion and move on?

[Inigima]

He's distinguishing between civil penalties and criminal charges. I'm still researching it, but this is the kind of semantic game I was talking about earlier -- my point is that Bundy is a bad guy who is violating the law. I don't much care if it's technically a criminal matter.

[grumdin]

This doesn't seem like an actual acknowledgement. Sorry, no points for obvious bad faith. Try again.

Has Cliven Bundy done anything wrong besides lose a civil dispute with the federal government?

I mean do you have video of protestors threatening federal officers? Eye witness testimony from the officers, from reporters, from by-standers? Or do you think that by simply openly carrying pistols in of itself is a threat? (Even though its perfectly legal). Give me something.

[grumdin]

He's distinguishing between civil penalties and criminal charges. I'm still researching it, but this is the kind of semantic game I was talking about earlier -- my point is that Bundy is a bad guy who is violating the law. I don't much care if it's technically a criminal matter.

Ini you stated on aprevious post that someone who is suspected of a crime, even though they hadn't been arrested, let alone tried and convicted,could be referred to as a criminal. Do you stand by that?

[DanteGabriel]

Why not just admit that you hate Bundy and his supporters and you threw out some unsubstantiated allegations based on your subjective opinion and move on?

I do find Bundy and his supporters reprehensible, and I've never denied that. I get that you disagree with my characterization of his supporters, particularly the "threatening" and "criminal" parts.

But for someone who has such laserlike focus on the words I use, you have trouble actually absorbing what I've said. I've said it way too many times already, so this is the last time I'll say it: I have already posted all the evidence I need to post to support my characterizations of Bundy and his supporters. I get that you disagree with my assessment, but I don't give a shit that you do, and I don't need to post more "evidence" just because you feel bad about being caught out multiple times for saying stupid, provably untrue things about numerous topics repeatedly over the course of this thread.

[TerraPrime]

Re: Tracker and Maithanet

I agree. Which is why I said that I could support a different version of this bill, not this current version. It's utterly transparent that the motivation for this Tennessee bill is to further curtail women's right to their bodies. No argument from me on that point.

But the topic of whether we ought to hold women accountable for the harm they had done to their fetuses through their drug addiction is a separate topic, imo, and can be discussed without enabling sexist legislations.

Re: Seli

I'm not happy to consider someone with drug issues (a medical problem) either fully accountable or unaccountable. But rather have a bias to the side of caution.

I disagree with this view. While there are definite physiological and physical components to addiction, I do not put it in the same category as cancer or MRSA infection, which is what "medical problem" brings to my mind.

So how would you evaluate the legal and moral components of a case where a drug addict physically harms someone else in a permanent and irreversibleway as a result of their addiction? Perhaps a drug addict was driving a car while under the influence and caused a car wreck that paralyzes the passengers in the other car? How would you assess the legal and moral culpability?

[DanteGabriel]

He's distinguishing between civil penalties and criminal charges. I'm still researching it, but this is the kind of semantic game I was talking about earlier -- my point is that Bundy is a bad guy who is violating the law. I don't much care if it's technically a criminal matter.

I get the distinction he's making, I just think it's a pointless distinction to make and a sideshow to distract from his dishonest boneheaded posting over the last few days.

[grumdin]

I do find Bundy and his supporters reprehensible, and I've never denied that. I get that you disagree with my characterization of his supporters, particularly the "threatening" and "criminal" parts.

But for someone who has such laserlike focus on the words I use, you have trouble actually absorbing what I've said. I've said it way too many times already, so this is the last time I'll say it: I have already posted all the evidence I need to post to support my characterizations of Bundy and his supporters. I get that you disagree with my assessment, but I don't give a shit that you do, and I don't need to post more "evidence" just because you feel bad about being caught out multiple times for saying stupid, provably untrue things about numerous topics repeatedly over the course of this thread.

Honestly I'm more than happy to change my opnion regarding Bundy. He's a racist no doubt, and in many respects is an unpleasant man. But a criminal? From what I've read he urged restraint throughout, demanded that the demonstrators come unarmed and did not ramp things up when the situation could have gotten out of control. I have sympathy for Bundy for the same reason I have sympathy for all the Nevada ranchers, they've been handed the shitty end of the stick by a Federal agency captured by vested interests who've decided the ranchers must be removed. Bundy has stood up for himself and done so in a peaceful and lawful manner.

[1918me]

Fox News is more ridiculous then I had suspected. Somehow.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/how-not-cover-presidential-press

Crazy fuckers and their Benghazi obsession.

Well, how can you expect Fox News to show something that they can't put a hardcore partisan spin on? Benghazi is what their viewers came to see, after all, not some nonsense about Ukraine!

[grumdin]

I get the distinction he's making, I just think it's a pointless distinction to make and a sideshow to distract from his dishonest boneheaded posting over the last few days.

It's not semantics. there is a massive distinction between losing a civil case, through failing to meet a contractual obligation, and breaking a criminal statute. One makes you a law breaker and the other doesn't.

[DanteGabriel]

Honestly I'm more than happy to change my opnion regarding Bundy. He's a racist no doubt, and in many respects is an unpleasant man. But a criminal? From what I've read he urged restraint throughout, demanded that the demonstrators come unarmed and did not ramp things up when the situation could have gotten out of control. I have sympathy for Bundy for the same reason I have sympathy for all the Nevada ranchers, they've been handed the shitty end of the stick by a Federal agency captured by vested interests who've decided the ranchers must be removed. Bundy has stood up for himself and done so in a peaceful and lawful manner.

Well, I'm clearly not as experienced as you are at parsing words, but I have to wonder what kind of peaceful engagement a "range war" refers to. As for asking that people come unarmed, they clearly didn't listen.

That night, Bundy took to his website to send a message. “They have my cattle and now they have one of my boys. Range War begins tomorrow.”

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/04/24/what-cliven-bundy-s-famous-backers-said-before-and-after.html

Sean Hannity asked Bundy how far he is willing to go in his “range war.”

“My statement to the American people: I’ll do whatever it takes to gain our liberties and freedom back,” he said.

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2014/04/09/nevada-rancher-cliven-bundy-threatens-%E2%80%98range-war%E2%80%99-against-government

"We definitely don't recognize [the BLM director's] jurisdiction or authority, his arresting power or policing power in any way," Bundy reminded his supporters.

The heavily armed crowd rallied under a banner that read "Liberty Freedom For God We Stand". Camouflaged militiamen stood at attention, communicating with earpieces. Most had signs, many of which chided "government thugs".

In interviews, Bundy had used the language of the "sovereign citizen" movement as a rallying call, beckoning passionate support from members of the Oath Keepers, the White Mountain Militia and the Praetorian Guard.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/13/nevada-bundy-cattle-ranch-armed-protesters

Over the years, the Department of Justice has more than once canceled BLM plans to round up the trespass cattle after blatant threats of violence from Bundy and his supporters, says Alan O’Neill, retired superintendent of the Lake Mead National Recreation Area adjacent to the allotment. The sieges at Ruby Ridge and Waco that fueled the ‘90s anti-government militia movement were fresh, he explains. “We were trying everything we could to resolve the issue peacefully. But he got more and more recalcitrant.”

https://www.hcn.org/blogs/goat/in-nevada-delicate-20-year-standoff-with-blm-ends-in-a-tense-roundup

As for not "ramping things up"...

ince the roundups began, protesters have been confined to two areas to publicly declare their grievances, but the peaceful protests in recent days "have crossed into illegal activity, including blocking vehicles associated with the (roundup), impeding cattle movement, and making direct and overt threats to government employees," the two federal agencies said in a statement.

On Wednesday, a bureau truck driven by a civilian employee assisting in the roundup "was struck by a protester on an ATV and the truck's exit from the area was blocked by a group of individuals who gathered around the vehicle," the agencies' statement said.

In the scuffle with protesters, a police dog was kicked, and officers protecting the civilian driver were threatened and assaulted, the two agencies' statement said. "After multiple requests and ample verbal warnings, law enforcement officers deployed Tasers on a protestor," the statement said.

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/04/10/us/nevada-rancher-rangers-cattle-showdown/?hpt=zite_zite3_featured

With rifles pointing toward each side and tensions reaching a critical level, federal land officials backed off and agreed to give up the cattle to Bundy’s family and supporters.

The mid-afternoon release by the Bureau of Land Management was hailed as a victory among supporters who had forced the closure of Interstate 15 after marching to the holding pen on the sides of the highway, although environmentalists condemned the agency’s decision.

http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/bundy-blm/blm-releases-bundy-cattle-after-protesters-block-southbound-i-15

Yeah, Bundy's been protesting lawfully... except for that whole "not recognizing the federal government" thing. And inviting protesters onto his land to threaten and assault law enforcement and to deface government property. And blocking a public road. But sure, yeah, he's been very responsible besides all that. Just like there weren't any liberals who criticized Obama's drone policies, besides the ones who did.

So... has Bundy done more wrong than simply "losing a civil dispute with the federal government?" Because over and over, that's how you characterized his actions, and I think an objective observer would see there's much more for him to answer for than just that.

[TrackerNeil]

But the topic of whether we ought to hold women accountable for the harm they had done to their fetuses through their drug addiction is a separate topic, imo, and can be discussed without enabling sexist legislations.

Although even in that debate I'd start by asking what the state is trying to accomplish. Making sure no one is born drug-addicted is a wonderful goal, but there are ways and ways to get there. Throwing people in jail is simplistic; getting people to change their lives is more difficult.

[Lany Freelove Cassandra]

No I expect people to back up their assertions, especially if it's accusing a known individual with law breaking, with facts. Under your definition just about anyone could be labeled a criminal, just as long as you believed them to be. I promise in future to be very careful in the language I use, I won't be letting my mouth run away with itself. However I would expect the same from other posters, seems fair no?

I follow these threads but don't post much, but this claim has come up several times. There are at least two laws that are in violation:

The one that has been mentioned several times and has been upheld by the Federal Courts. I haven't read all the transcripts of them, but they should be under Title 30 US Code Section 188, the failure to pay fees and it does allow for confiscation of items on the land if back fees are owed. (eta: this is not the right section, but I will look for it later)

Which is what was happening when Bundy and his friends protested.

Failing to make his payments, clearly breaks the law, and not just civil law.

Which brings us to the second law violated:

Seditious Conspiracy, Title 18, Section 2384 of the US Code:

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both

My bolded parts are what the militia did.

(sorry if anyone had already posted this)

[davos]

Even if I accepted that the dude with the rifle was pointing his gun at a cop, and neither you or I can know that, it still doesn't back up your assetion that a militia army, no less, was threatening federal officials.

It doesn't matter one iota rather the individual pictured with the rifle on the overpass ever actually pointed his rifle at a law enforcement officer or not. He certainly wasn't in that position because he wanted to take a nap or was trying to get a better view. He had a high-powered weapon drawn and by all apearances ready to use, he had assumed an advantagous location from which to use that weapon (in that it was on higher ground with that provided a wide range of fire and a clear view of the a large area), and he had taken a position ideal from which to fire that weapon (laying on his stomach with the weapon braced). Since he was part of the protests and since the protests were aimed at the activities of law enforcement officers, the only implication to be derived from this individuals actions is to threaten the use of deadly force against officers of the law. It doesn't matter what was in his mind, it doesn't matter if his rilfe was actually loaded. To put it another way, one does not do what this individual did, unless one is either intending to use deadly force, or is attempting to intimidate by showing a readiness to use deadly force.

Its also clear that this was not the only person present who was armed, though, he's the only one shown with having assumed a firing position with weapon at the ready. There was a clear implication that at least some present were ready to use force to resist any attempt by law enforcement to break up the protest. They have every right to gather to protest. The implied threat by the presence of weapons and at least one individual who thoroughly prepared to use one makes it something other than a peaceful protest.

[Mudguard]

There is also the question of volume. HC cost can rise and the ACA would still be a success. You see the hand waving from the right we see here trying to get you to look at total costs when what we should care about is COST PER PATIENT. So, yes health care costs may rise in total. But what do you expect with higher volume?

I'm assuming that you are equating cost with spending, since the terms total costs and cost per patient makes the most sense when discussing spending. This is fine, but I just want to avoid any confusion, since some people use the term cost to describe the cost of a medical procedure, drug, hospital stay, etc.

Total spending is directly related to the spending per patient. Total spending equals the total population times the spending per patient. If the total spending increased by 9.9%, it's clear that the spending per patient has gone up significantly since the population growth of the US is much less than 9.9% in that period of time. So if you are truly worried about increases in spending per patient, then you should also be worried about the increase in total spending.

[Inigima]

Ini you stated on aprevious post that someone who is suspected of a crime, even though they hadn't been arrested, let alone tried and convicted,could be referred to as a criminal. Do you stand by that?

That isn't what I said. I do not agree with your statement as formulated. Here is the relevant post:

Are you proposing that if I stab a guy, but have not yet been caught, charged, tried, and convicted, I'm not a criminal?

And whether you are or aren't, do you genuinely see value in this kind of semantic game?

The distinction is very important. What I'm saying is that if someone commits a criminal act, but has not yet been convicted, they are still a criminal. Not merely someone who is suspected of a crime -- someone who has definitely committed the act.