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

[DanteGabriel]

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

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.

What? Grumdin tried to mis-quote you in order to bolster his own position? How staggeringly uncharacteristic of him! He's usually so careful about word use!

Also, more on Cliven Bundy, responsible and peaceful protester:

"I've got to protect my property," he told The Times last year. "If people come to monkey with what's mine, I'll call the county sheriff. If that don't work, I'll gather my friends and kids and we'll try to stop it. I abide by all state laws. But I abide by almost zero federal laws."

http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-vegas-blm-range-war-20140407,0,1480936.story#axzz30auvVZqZ

On the weekend of April 12 to 13, over 1,000 anti-government militia groups and Bundy supporters converged on his ranch to defend him from the encroachment of federal agents and demand the return of his cattle. Around 10 a.m. Saturday, Bundy issued an ultimatum to the Clark County sheriff: He had one hour to disarm all federal agents on the property, return the cattle and remove the BLM from Bundy’s land.

At 11:10 a.m., Bundy got on a megaphone and told his supporters to go get his cattle back. Local ranchers on horseback, militiamen in pickup trucks and others rode toward the corral where the cattle were being held. BLM agents, decked out in full riot gear, pointed guns at the anti-government group. The two sides jostled.

With the situation nearing the boiling point, the BLM blinked.

http://www.newsweek.com/2014/05/02/militiamen-fight-over-cliven-bundys-ranch-far-over-248354.html

Let's not forget -- when the confrontation came, it was those awful jackbooted federal thugs who... stood down and de-escalated.

Well, grumdin? Did Bundy do everything he could to ramp things down? I mean, I'd say that asking the armed protesters to go home might ramp things down, but getting on a megaphone and sending your supporters into a direct physical confrontation doesn't sound very ramp-downy.

Why, it's almost as if, despite your protestations, you're not actually "more than happy" to change your opinion about Bundy, and have continued your pattern of trying to portray this racist ignorant deadbeat in the best possible plausibility-straining light...

[sologdin]

there's nothing not peaceful about getting all 600 of your peace-loving heavily-armed & armored friends into the back of the pickup truck with gitrdone stickers all over and then driving peacefully along the non-federal highways to the local tavern & klavern meeting center for a little peaceful rally and/or shooting contest at BHO targets, is there?

[BloodRider]

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.

Yup. If a black man were on the bridge with a rifle he would have been 'stand your grounded' before you could say 'strange fruit'

[DanteGabriel]

Yup. If a black man were on the bridge with a rifle he would have been 'stand your grounded' before you could say 'strange fruit'

Are you trying to say Bundy's a racist?!? You don't have any evidence of that!

Oh wait, that was grumdin's favored obfuscatory tactic last week, before Bundy started opining about how black people would probably be better off picking cotton on slave plantations again. I'd forgotten that grumdin's Bundy defense had moved on to "he just lost a civil case" and "he was peacefully protesting" and "you just hate Bundy, that's all."

It's amazing we're still talking about this crazy old fuck, but grumdin's like a dog with a toy he can't let go.

[1918me]

Are you trying to say Bundy's a racist?!? You don't have any evidence of that!

Oh wait, that was grumdin's favored obfuscatory tactic last week, before Bundy started opining about how black people would probably be better off picking cotton on slave plantations again. I'd forgotten that grumdin's Bundy defense had moved on to "he just lost a civil case" and "he was peacefully protesting" and "you just hate Bundy, that's all."

It's amazing we're still talking about this crazy old fuck, but grumdin's like a dog with a toy he can't let go.

What's it been, three or four threads now? When was the last time a single issue was debated so long here?

[Suttree]

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.

Was that before or after he issued a "call to arms"?

Also good to see your still making shit up on the spot. Solid.

[DanteGabriel]

What's it been, three or four threads now? When was the last time a single issue was debated so long here?

Well the ACA has gotten plenty of running debate, but that's a huge and complex law. Lots of things get debated over and over here, but they're usually Big and Complex issues like civil liberties or progressive taxation or voter ID laws.

Meanwhile grumdin has made a long-running personal cause out of defending the honor of one dumb-ass overprivileged crank in the desert who doesn't understand basic laws and has been a deadbeat on his taxes for twenty years. Patriotism! Yeehaw!

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:

My bolded parts are what the militia did.

(sorry if anyone had already posted this)

I tried to make similar points about obstructing law enforcement, but I didn't cite actual laws. Here's hoping grumdin takes more notice of your points than he did of mine.

[awesome possum]

What's it been, three or four threads now? When was the last time a single issue was debated so long here?

Benghazi, with the account grumdin used to post from before he lost his temper at being proven constantly wrong and got himself banned.

[Galactus]

Meanwhile grumdin has made a long-running personal cause out of defending the honor of one dumb-ass overprivileged crank in the desert who doesn't understand basic laws and has been a deadbeat on his taxes for twenty years. Patriotism! Yeehaw!

There's only one thing your country asks from you... Your income tax!

[karaddin]

Calling back to the last thread, as someone living in a country with compulsory voting none of the arguments against it strike me as particularly compelling. As Shryke said it basically eliminates all the stupid disenfranchisement shit you have to deal with over there, it's a straight forward efficient process which doesn't cause any major inconveniences.

I feel even more strongly about preferential voting though, the fact that it is still relatively rare is just mind boggling to me, it's so much better than first past the post.

I'd say the same about having a non partisan commission determining electoral districts for that matter.

As to the discussion about drugs and children, I don't think it's possible to have legislation in that area that isn't attacking women's bodily autonomy. Addiction is a medical issue, both the physical addiction itself and the mental health issues frequently underlying it. Throwing women in prison isn't going to address the problem, it's just going to result in more kids with mothers in prison.

[Inigima]

What is the actual status of the Bundy case? I assume standing down was a temporary thing to avoid a bloodbath, they're not just gonna let him get away with ignoring the law are they?

[Inigima]

Bit of fun we can all get behind: http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=3344

[1918me]

Bit of fun we can all get behind: http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=3344

Haha! That was pretty great!

[Shryke]

there's nothing not peaceful about getting all 600 of your peace-loving heavily-armed & armored friends into the back of the pickup truck with gitrdone stickers all over and then driving peacefully along the non-federal highways to the local tavern & klavern meeting center for a little peaceful rally and/or shooting contest at BHO targets, is there?

You forgot stopping people randomly while holding guns for various paranoid reasons related to government infiltration or something.

Alot of the news coming out of there the last day or two has been about the various militia groups not playing well with each other. Especially, it seems, those crazy fuckers the Oathkeepers.

[Wise Fool]

It's amazing we're still talking about this crazy old fuck, but grumdin's like a dog with a toy he can't let go.

To be fair, I think we'd still talk about Bundy, grundin or no grundin, if only because the media gave him so much attention and there was and still is a bit of 'controversy' surrounding the whole situation, and it kind of exemplifies certain problems in American political views these days. Namely that the formerly jingoist right has become amazingly anti-government, so much so that any idiot who thumbs his nose at the government becomes an immediate right-wing media darling. This would never have happened during the Bush administration.

[TrackerNeil]

Come on, DanteGabriel! Have we become so politically correct that a guy can't opine that black people have become overly dependent on government handouts and were better off as the property of white people without being called a racist? Sheesh.

[Durckad]

To be fair, I think we'd still talk about Bundy, grundin or no grundin, if only because the media gave him so much attention and there was and still is a bit of 'controversy' surrounding the whole situation, and it kind of exemplifies certain problems in American political views these days. Namely that the formerly jingoist right has become amazingly anti-government, so much so that any idiot who thumbs his nose at the government becomes an immediate right-wing media darling. This would never have happened during the Bush administration.

Oh, c'mon, the republicans were very supportive of the Dixie Chick's rights to question the administration and broadcast their contrary opinions.

Oh, wait. Maybe they just didn't use enough guns when they did it. That would've made the difference!

[The Marquis de Leech]

I feel even more strongly about preferential voting though, the fact that it is still relatively rare is just mind boggling to me, it's so much better than first past the post.

Yes and no. The problems of FPP are well known. Preferential voting and its multi-seat cousin STV introduce their own problems though, since so much depends on the order in which the lower candidates are eliminated. You get counter-intuitive situations where first prefencing someone can actually hurt them.

I like pure proportional representation myself.

[sToNED_CAT]

I like pure proportional representation myself.

Proportional systems give too much power to parties over individuals. Political parties should be eliminated, not strengthened.

[The Marquis de Leech]

Proportional systems give too much power to parties over individuals. Political parties should be eliminated, not strengthened.

You may have noticed, but political parties (shared coalitions of groups with similar goals) are a democratic reality, whether the system is proportional or not. Ditto the whip system.